www.conservapedia.com

[elSicomoro]

For "ketchup"...emphasis mine:

As part of changes proposed by the USDA and implemented into law, ketchup was declared a vegetable by the Republican Reagan administration on March 9, 1981; this was "so public schools could include it in their balanced meal plan," However, liberal critics charged that it would allow schools to count ketchup as a vegetable in place of "real" vegetables like potatoes and the like. After a volcano of negative publicity, the USDA and the Reagan Administration stopped refering to condiments as vegetables.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Exactly why we scientists view Wikipedia with some measure of distrust.

[Phil]

B.C. and A.D. only exist in Christainity as numerous ego-maniacs have tried to stop / change tiime.
for instance, September would have been the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, December the 10th month.
As i am not a scientist, i present this in laymens' terms. :p

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Phil

for instance, September would have been the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, December the 10th month.
As i am not a scientist, i present this in laymens' terms.

As I recall, Julius Caesar added "July" and Augustus added "August," right?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by sycamore

For "ketchup"...emphasis mine:

As part of changes proposed by the USDA and implemented into law, ketchup was declared a vegetable by the Republican Reagan administration on March 9, 1981; this was "so public schools could include it in their balanced meal plan," However, liberal critics charged that it would allow schools to count ketchup as a vegetable in place of "real" vegetables like potatoes and the like. After a volcano of negative publicity, the USDA and the Reagan Administration stopped refering to condiments as vegetables.

Hmmm, how did the word liberal disappear the first time this paragraph was posted?

[Flint]

The funny thing about this idea, that Wikipedia is a biased, Liberal source, is that Wikipedia is a collective repository of knowledge into which all are welcome to make additions. Conservative viewpoints, such as they exist in society, have exactly the same chance of being represented in Wikipedia as any others.

What we have here is a lack of bias being misrepresented as a bias because a certain group of people are resentful that their own bias is not represented.

Furthermore, what Wikipedia represents, on one level, is a toppling of the old standard information model: that message control can be coordinated through a few central sources, IE mass media outlets. In this case, a small group, whose wacky ideas have been over-represented in the past, are finally seeing a realistic balance of ideas, and they don't like it because it exposes them as the fringe group that they are.

Somebody call that waaahmbulance. We're gonna need it more and more frequently, it appears.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Flint

What we have here is a lack of bias being misrepresented as a bias because a certain group of people are resentful that their own bias is not represented.

Very good thinking.

I was just going to say if you are bias towards a topic, wouldn't even a nonbias article seem bias.

Americans have to remember that the middle for America is very right leaning in world politics.

[cowhead]

it's catsup

[Clodfobble]

And it's biased, while we're at it.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Hmmm, how did the word liberal disappear the first time this paragraph was posted?

Oh wow...I forgot that Rich posted this initially. I swear I didn't add "liberal," nor did I change it on their site...here's a screenshot:

[Happy Monkey]

Here's the diff. Thank "Godman".

[elSicomoro]

Oh wow...does Wikipedia have a similar function? I've never delved that hard into it to notice.

[Happy Monkey]

Yup, that's wiki functionality. Without something like that, recovery from vandalism would be virtually impossible.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Phil

B.C. and A.D. only exist in Christainity as numerous ego-maniacs have tried to stop / change tiime.

You are correct that the concept of BC and AD came out of Christianity, and that there is a certain level of insanity in trying to manipulate our time-line, but some method of independent dating was needed. At the time that the idea of BC and AD was put forward, no one had an "earliest" starting date (yes, I know, several were "calculated"). Different societies and religions had (and still have), their own calendars, and starting dates. I am not a Christian, though I believe most strongly that Jesus lived, and was a great man.

Historians for centuries have accepted year one AD as a starting point to move forward, and this coincidently gives year one BC a starting point moving backwards, that has no artificial limit. So being tied to some calendar that starts at 1, but does not recognise anything before that date, would be like tying our hands behind our back.

It does not matter that the Christian method was adopted. It does not matter that Jesus was likely born somewhere between 4 BC and 7 BC. The BC/AD system has worked. Personally, I would prefer to stick to BC/AD rather than BCE/CE, but as I said previously, historians decided that the old terminology was offensive to too many people, so they changed it.

BTW, I started this thread saying that the conservapedia worries me. I do not support it in *any* way. My concerns with Wikipedia are that entries can be added and modified by anyone, regardess of the validity of what they write. The "editors" are just random people on the Net. There is no vetting of their knowledge or experience. Jim Wales admitted this in an NPR interview some weeks ago.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here's the diff. Thank "Godman".

Thanks for pointing that out. All I saw was the "This page was last modified 23:23, 18 March 2007." tag at the bottom of the page.

Is it possible my post led him to make the change?