lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Wikipedia trying to rewrite History concerning Obama
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-09-2009, 05:14 PM   #1
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Wikipedia trying to rewrite History concerning Obama

Specifically they are deleting mentions of his ties to Ayers, they've even temp banned someone for fixing it and posting sources to back up the fix.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 05:30 PM   #2
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
...


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice

Last edited by SkinWalker; 03-09-2009 at 07:31 PM.
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:17 PM   #3
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Specifically they are deleting mentions of his ties to Ayers, they've even temp banned someone for fixing it and posting sources to back up the fix.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
Good find Garfield. Wikipedia has been well known for biased editing. Some colleges have banned its use from being cited in essays and reports. It doesn't surprise me that this has happend. It was only a mater of time. Nice find.

We should go in an tweak the article ourselves.
Yar-El is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:20 PM   #4
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Good find Garfield. Wikipedia has been well known for biased editing. Some colleges have banned its use from being cited in essays and reports. It doesn't surprise me that this has happend. It was only a mater of time. Nice find.
Thank you, it wasn't hard considering it was on page one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
We should go in an tweak the article ourselves.
It is much more entertaining to watch the back and forth as the staff of wikipedia tries to explain themselves.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:23 PM   #5
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Thank you, it wasn't hard considering it was on page one.

It is much more entertaining to watch the back and forth as the staff of wikipedia tries to explain themselves.
We have to remember that history is written by the victor. Wikipedia should have executed their unbiased stance; thus, allowing the inclusion of Obama's past affiliations.

Wikipedia should remember - Obama's personal associations are not based upon opinion. They have proven to be facts.

I don't know if there is any debating on this subject, but it is a topic of interest to some people. - Yar.

Last edited by Yar-El; 03-09-2009 at 07:48 PM.
Yar-El is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:47 PM   #6
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quite frankly wikipedia is by definition a biased source. To think otherwise is simply cutting your own argument to shreds. It is banned from many schools because every single entry, regardless of sources, is a biased entry and not all of them are even remotely correct.

Personally, I would like to see the entry in question before I give judgment. The person was banned for "point of view junk", which -could- have meant he did in fact enter something that was biased junk, whether that be liberal or conservative junk.

Fact is a lot of the Ayer/Obama stuff is speculation, and if the person did post speculation and presented it as fact then it he deserved to be banned. For all we know, he posted some bull and then sourced blogs.

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:51 PM   #7
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Fact is a lot of the Ayer/Obama stuff is speculation, and if the person did post speculation and presented it as fact then it he deserved to be banned. For all we know, he posted some bull and then sourced blogs.
Obama's connection with Ayers is fact; however, the type of relationship they had is based upon speculation. I'm awed at how many people take Wikipedia as the god given truth.
Yar-El is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:57 PM   #8
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Obama's connection with Ayers is fact; however, the type of relationship they had is based upon speculation. I'm awed at how many people take Wikipedia as the god given truth.
Well the Fox News Article sources what the article originally had and what wikipedia took out.


Since it was the staff that removed pretty much all mention of Ayers, this is an issue involving the staff of wikipedia and they can't claim it was just some random individual.

In fact the staff just came out and blamed Conservatives, and now the situation has escalated because a news organization is calling them on it.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 11:30 PM   #9
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.
Well to correct you, Fox News is a lot more legitimate than most media outlets these days (and a heck of a lot better at sourcing things), which is a seperate topic:

http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=196208

Anyways, True_Avery in my experience academia is actually some of the worst people when it comes to not sourcing materials or sourcing materials they know are blatently false.



Back to topic, wikipedia used to have some credibility but like MSNBC, the Associated Press, and other media outlets they have lost credibility.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 11:35 PM   #10
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Back to topic, wikipedia used to have some credibility but like MSNBC, the Associated Press, and other media outlets they have lost credibility.
With whom exactly?

Last edited by True_Avery; 03-09-2009 at 11:45 PM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:05 AM   #11
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
With whom exactly?
Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikinor
I don't want to hijack this or anything, but someone please, please, please tell me that that Conservapedia site is a joke. Please!
I have no clue, I hadn't heard of them till today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikinor
As for the wikipedia issue. It's not a matter of big importance to me. I mean sure it's a little odd and if it is the staff removing the information(which is supposedly true information) then it is unprofessional. But it is their site and they are allowed to do with it what they like.
They are supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a propaganda pulpit for the DNC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikinor
And, I don't want to be mean or flame you like "everyone else" but could you try and include links to news sources other than Fox?
Because the "mainstream media" is refusing to cover anything that makes the 'annointed one' look bad. Furthermore, a lot of the reporters in the mainstream media want to have Obama's babies. Last but not least, as I pointed out in another thread many reporters have spouses that work for the Obama Administration which is another conflict of interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
With whom exactly?
So let me get this straight you consider attacking a child of a candidate that happens to be a toddler to be remotely legitimate?
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:15 AM   #12
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.
Sources.

Quote:
So let me get this straight you consider attacking a child of a candidate that happens to be a toddler to be remotely legitimate?
Fox News has never attacked anyone ever?
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:29 AM   #13
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.
WTF are you talking about? "Having Obama's babies?"



A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 08:12 PM   #14
RoxStar
Moderator
 
RoxStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,412
Current Game: Everything Zelda
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well considering they want to have Obama's babies

Classy.

Fact is, wikipedia is slightly leftist in general. Is it because the majority of users are under 30, a crowd that has proven to the the largest supporters of both Barack Obama and the DNC in general, or is it just the general atmosphere surrounding the resource?

Also I agree with you that MSNBC has totally gone left over the course of the last year. Save for these two:





HOWEVER Fox News is still way

way
WAY

WAYYYYY worse.

RoxStar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 07:59 PM   #15
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Awhile back, a couple people threw up the "Wikipedia is liberal" thing, treating Wikipedia as one single entity which edits itself, rather than a massive community of contributors.

Their solution? Conservapedia.

That's right; Combat bias with even more bias. For example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conservapedia's article dealing with Liberals
A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:06 PM   #16
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Awhile back, a couple people threw up the "Wikipedia is liberal" thing, treating Wikipedia as one single entity which edits itself, rather than a massive community of contributors.

Their solution? Conservapedia.
Okay I really don't think that is a solution either, because quite frankly it makes it look like Ann Coulter is a liberal based on what I'm seeing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
That's right; Combat bias with even more bias. For example:
Which is why I probably wouldn't use them as a source without some other sources to back it up. It's also why I usually check newsbuster links for other sources before I post stories from newsbusters. I generally trust newsbusters but I still like to verify things.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:08 PM   #17
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Which is why I probably wouldn't use them as a source without some other sources to back it up. It's also why I usually check newsbuster links for other sources before I post stories from newsbusters. I generally trust newsbusters but I still like to verify things.
Alright, but if you apply the same logic toward Newsbusters, then how do you know that it's 100% accurate?
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:13 PM   #18
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Alright, but if you apply the same logic toward Newsbusters, then how do you know that it's 100% accurate?
Newsbusters tends to be accurate because they take the time to actually source things often the very things they are reporting about. It's also why some bloggers such as littlegreenfootballs and Drudge Report are more credible than some other blog sites.

Fact is though in this wikipedia situation, there is quite a bit of evidence to prove the wikipedia staff have been behaving in an unethical manner.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:15 PM   #19
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Newsbusters tends to be accurate because they take the time to actually source things often the very things they are reporting about. It's also why some bloggers such as littlegreenfootballs and Drudge Report are more credible than some other blog sites.
How do you know that? People can forge almost anything and report it as the truth, especially on the Internets. How do you know that they aren't just making stuff up?
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:06 PM   #20
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
An internet site being biased?! Call the news stands jim! We have a story for a slow day!

Please. If you have a problem with a forum being biased, go to another forum. If you have a problem with a news organization being biased, watch another one. If you don't like your soup, ask for a different bowl.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

There, your own personal heaven. Because the beauty of the internet is there is actually no requirement for unbiased websites. You have the fee right to post anything anywhere under the rules of the website. Why? Because someone owns that website and on the internet, they make the rules unless it breaks some international law like child porn.

If you hate wikipedia, go to http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page . The website's articles personally make me hate being apart of the human race, but you may find them more to your fancy.

Quote:
Homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual groups spend tens of millions of dollars every year to market and normalize their aberrant lifestyles, yet after all these years there is not a single, serious national group dedicated specifically to exposing and countering their agendas...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Liberal_Brain.jpg

Enjoy!

EDIT: PX got it in before me, but my point still stands.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:16 PM   #21
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Fact is though in this wikipedia situation, there is quite a bit of evidence to prove the wikipedia staff have been behaving in an unethical manner.
Umm, your point?

There is no requirement for them to act "ethically" by your standards.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:23 PM   #22
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Umm, your point?

There is no requirement for them to act "ethically" by your standards.
Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.

Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:29 PM   #23
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.
No, they cannot get in trouble. There are no laws requiring you to be unbiased online.

And no, they are not falsely advertising because they are not selling anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.
What people? How many people honestly take wikipedia as pure fact?

That seems like a problem with the ignorance of the people instead of the bias of wikipedia. You aren't helping, however, by pinning this solely on democrats.

Again, it is not their ethical, moral, political, etc responsibility to be unbiased. Wikipedia is by definition a biased source and should be treated as such.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:29 PM   #24
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.
Okay.
Quote:
Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.
I guess you can apply the same logic with Fox News' slogan of "Fair and Balanced", right?
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:35 PM   #25
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
I guess you can apply the same logic with Fox News' slogan of "Fair and Balanced", right?
Depends, compared to a lot of the other news organizations you can take it two ways.
  1. They are the most fair and balanced network on Television
  2. They balance out the liberal leaning networks

Fact, is Hillary Clinton even claimed that Fox News was the most balanced news network of the bunch.

Anyways, Fox News is a for profit, and they can argue that they are referring to their news segments and not the commentators, their news segments are actually rather balanced.

The other issue here is that wikipedia is actively deleting any mention of things that are politically embarassing for Obama despite the fact they are true, and Fox News made no such effort on their site.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:43 PM   #26
TriggerGod
Senior Member
 
TriggerGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: hiding
Posts: 2,415
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Fact, is Hillary Clinton even claimed that Fox News was the most balanced news network of the bunch.
surveys show 9/10 americans care about what Hillary Clinton says.


Now, what do you expect from a website that is able to be openly edited by anybody with an internet connection and half a brain? Of course there are going to be people who will edit these articles to fit how they think. Liberal, Conservative, and otherwise.

In conclusion:
Show spoiler
TriggerGod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 08:19 PM   #27
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Few people that take academia serious consider Wikipedia an a priori truth, god-given or otherwise.

I personally find WP useful for my blog, where I'll link to things that offer general concepts to readers (like "Last Glacial Maxmimum" or "Human Evolution"). WP is useful for getting a quick general concept and to locate secondary sources which cite primary. I would never cite Wikipedia unless I were using a Creative Commons photo or graphic -nor would I recommend anyone cite Wikipedia since its a tertiary source. Primary and secondary sources are preferable in any research or academic writings.

As far as the Wikipedia entry on Obama, looking at the Talk Page, there seems to be a consensus that there needs to be something written on the Obama/Ayers connection, but they're hashing out precisely how to word it. The problem they're faced with is constant vandalism by extremists that oppose Obama at the cost of logic and rational discourse and fringe media like Fox and WorldNut Daily will exploit the curtailment and moderation of such extremists to their own ends.

In the end, there was a connection between Obama and Ayers and it did, indeed, cause a stir so it should be covered by WP. I'm betting it will be soon, but in the mean time there's no reason why they should simply permit wholesale vandalism of the page by left and right wing extremists who battle back and forth over the issue.

There doesn't seem to be, however, any support for the OP which alleges with much hyperbole that "Wikipedia is rewriting history."


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 09:17 PM   #28
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
That argument doesn't fly because the information the person in this case posted was factual and provided sources to back it up.

That's a big difference from vandalizing the article, and the person was banned.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 11:46 PM   #29
Vikinor
600cc
 
Vikinor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Midgard
Posts: 1,232
Current Game: Cataclysm
I don't want to hijack this or anything, but someone please, please, please tell me that that Conservapedia site is a joke. Please!

As for the wikipedia issue. It's not a matter of big importance to me. I mean sure it's a little odd and if it is the staff removing the information(which is supposedly true information) then it is unprofessional. But it is their site and they are allowed to do with it what they like.

And, I don't want to be mean or flame you like "everyone else" but could you try and include links to news sources other than Fox?




Original member of 2002.
Vikinor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:55 AM   #30
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
WTF are you talking about? "Having Obama's babies?"
I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.


Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
Good job pulling a bull example out of the air to present a bull argument, not only missing the message of the article but completely mixing up who they were talking about.
I can tell you didn't read what all I posted:

Quote:
The newly named head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, is married to New York Times reporter Jason DeParle. The marriage was mentioned in the Times article on Mrs. DeParle’s appointment, but will the editor or the Public Editor of the Times explain how they’ll avoid a conflict?

Time magazine saluted Mrs. DeParle’s resume, including running Medicare at the end of the Clinton administration, but like the Times, they were more concerned with her private-sector conflicts: "Since then she has become a highly sought-after corporate, academic and foundation consultant, earning enough money with her husband, New York Times reporter Jason DeParle, to buy a $3 million house in the Washington suburbs in 2007."

This theme emerged earlier: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is married to Ian Cameron, who was named last fall to be the executive producer of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It might seem obvious that ABC’s less interested in the appearance problems of any conflicts, with Stephanopoulos the Clinton operative as its top political analyst (and a Cuomo as a news anchor).
-- http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...ses-team-obama

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...t-a-president/


I'll try to find some other links as well on that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
I suggest you don't mention this baseless red herring again.
Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
Not attacking children doesn't save them from the blatant bias and attacks the have done over the years themselves. I seem to remember them calling out Obama on not being an American Citizen and cheating his way in?
Sean Hannity pointed out Obama's ties to ACORN which is well-known for voter fraud, but the not being an American Citizen garbage was from the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the only thing Fox News brought up about it was that it wasn't the Republicans that came up with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
Fox is as low as MSNBC is. They just happen to be on different ladders on their way down.
Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.
Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

We see this kind of stuff with wikipedia as well.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:58 AM   #31
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.
Ann Coulter is a fascist white supremacist; she has no credibility whatsoever.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:01 AM   #32
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Ann Coulter is a fascist white supremacist; she has no credibility whatsoever.
I will agree she has no credibility, but can it with calling people racists, because it used way too often.

Anyways to explain, I'm saying Ann Coulter whom I agree with you has next to no credibility, has more credibility than MSNBC.

Can we get back to topic...
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:04 AM   #33
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I will agree she has no credibility, but can it with calling people racists, because it used way too often.
She believes that Jews need to be "perfected" to Christianity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:11 AM   #34
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
She believes that Jews need to be "perfected" to Christianity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html
Okay... I'm not sure if she was just being an idiot, was drunk, or you may be right. Though on the flipside she could be doing another one of her stunts to get attention for her books...

I generally don't consider her having much in the way of credibility, I'd argue MSNBC is just as bad though, if not worse.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:11 AM   #35
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.
Well, who wouldn't swoon over his glistening pectorals? I somehow suspect that Mrs. Obama would kick some butt if anyone tried to get close to sleeping with him.

Wikipedia is a good starting point for finding real history sources, but as far as legitimate history, it's a tertiary source at best and should not be relied on as anything other than that for any historical topic. As long as the Obama wiki entry is subject to editing, it's going to be suspect because people can do malicious edits and comments from both liberal and conservative sources. Wiki has never been a good historical source for anything, even if it's useful for some facts and basic information, so I'm not sure what all the excitement is that the entry changes.

Edit: Sorry Skinwalker--didn't see that you'd posted essentially the same thing.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.


Last edited by Jae Onasi; 03-10-2009 at 11:11 PM.
Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 06:28 PM   #36
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
So, because they are married that makes them unfit to do their job?

I'm sorry, but if they worked to get where they were and are qualified, they should have the right to have those jobs. Don't post speculation that they "wont do their job" as fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?
... T-thanks for pointing out?

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSTED IT.

Thank you yet again for proving that you don't even read your own sources. And you wonder why people get angry at you...

And as far as the Obama's go, what you posted was a damn blog. Stop it with the damn blogs, or I will report you for spam. Its even better that you are posting this in a thread about credibility in wikipedia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
I'm sorry to open this door up for you, but women have erotic thoughts as well. The media has little control over what gets to a woman, and if that happens to be Barack for some of them then I wont judge. There are worse people they could be swooning over anyway, like some drugged out celebrity singer.

And, considering that is a blog, I could care less what she says. Most of the people she quotes are people who wrote to her due to the e-mail inquiry she sent out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.
Do you even know what a Red Herring is? Because you make an awful lot of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_her...y)#Red_herring

This is a thread on Wikipedia and you find it necessary to bring in a topic of random women having fantasies about Obama to distract from the fact you don't have any other argument but smears.

You present blogs from journalists, not even actual articles, as evidence of this. That is a Red Herring. If you don't like it, stop making them or learn the fallacies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.
Haha

This is the exact reason I left Kavars when you were posting. You completely fail to read posts. Completely and utterly fail. I have mentioned that I think MSNBC is a biased source for months.

Fox News is on the same level as MSNBC, as I said if you had read my entire post. Fox is biased towards its own opinions, and many of its pundits are down right jackasses like they are on MSNBC.

And no, Ann Coulter has no credibility. At all. She is a racist sexist and has an admitted biased. Nice try though.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.
Again with the MSNBC... Why do you think they represent the entire left?

Does everything every Fox News pundit has ever said represent the entire right? No, it doesn't.

And the best part is, you just proved the VERY THING YOU RESPONDED TO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.
I mean, seriously...

Does the fact MSNBC guy did that important? In some thread, yes. In this thread, however, it is another one of your Strawmen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_her...y)#Red_herring

Last edited by True_Avery; 03-10-2009 at 06:39 PM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 01:01 PM   #37
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Their solution? Conservapedia.
Conservapedia is a blast. I should visit it more often as it's an excellent source of entertainment. Kinda like FSTDT, may it rest in peace.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 08:26 PM   #38
Vikinor
600cc
 
Vikinor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Midgard
Posts: 1,232
Current Game: Cataclysm
^ I agree. It almost seems hypocritical that someone can say MSNBC is not credible due to its bias, but Fox is?

I don't watch Fox intentionally, but since one side of my family is a bunch of Conservatives, I see more than I want to. I find Fox News annoyingly conservative. I can't stand many of their talking heads either. O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity...that one chick.

I don't watch MSNBC much either.




Original member of 2002.
Vikinor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 09:11 PM   #39
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Okay the problem with both your arguments is that Obama in his own words wants to redistribute wealth. I've heard the radio conversation, he has made similar comments over the course of his life so some of the examples your News Hounds site are listing, Fox News can actually back up what they are saying and it kinda makes News Hounds look like a bunch of idiots. Reason I know about those things is because of the fact I'm the one that brought up these issues on Kavars in the past.

Also two of the people you're giving as examples are commentators and one could argue entertainers, not news anchors.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 12:52 AM   #40
RoxStar
Moderator
 
RoxStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,412
Current Game: Everything Zelda
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Also two of the people you're giving as examples are commentators and one could argue entertainers, not news anchors.
Not to sound like a jerk, but please argue that. Joe Scarborough is a former republican congressman and Pat Buchanan is a former senior adviser to Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and has run for President numerous times.

Not to get off topic here, but you said President Obama said in his own words that he wanted to "redistribute wealth" when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". I agree that the President's statement completely suggests a redistribution of wealth, I just do not see how this play's into our debate surrounding wikipedia? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's staff has deleted these arguments to "clean up" their image of Obama. While it is very shady that they did this, I would argue that this has been a rallying cry against Mr. Obama by conservatives since the hard iron days of the 2008 campaign and that the Wikipedia staff is deleting it because it is deemed too far right for their sense of "balance".

Similarly, if it was written about John McCain his involvement with the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, I sincerely believe that such a repeated and brash additions or insertions would be removed by wikipedia because it would tip the balance too far left.

Also you failed to address my original points before my lovely photos

RoxStar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Wikipedia trying to rewrite History concerning Obama

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.