Need help with editing Wikipedia.

Wikipedia ^ | Friday, September 05, 2008 | Steve Van Doorn

[Steve Van Doorn]

Voters do this and it needs work, so please forget your bias.

The attacks against Palin are constant and sometimes nasty.
You can do a little activism at home at your computer.

The main Sarah Palin description of who she is at the moment isn’t too bad.
But the sub categories are rather damaging. Such as this one:

Political positions of Sarah Palin

The whole pages is full of condescending and just very bias remarks such as this:
”Endangered species
she opposed the listing of polar bears as an endangered species, claiming that she had based her position on a comprehensive review of expert scientific opinion.[30] State biologists have disagreed that such support exists

Iraq:
”Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies, saying, "We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."

here are more pages that I have not looked at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sarah_Palin

Remember you have to back up what you say… which I notice on the abortion points the writer has nothing but bad links. Right now you can not edit the page but you can sign in and take the issue to discussion.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I am going to bed and will be back in a few days. Please do what you can do clean this up.

Thank you

BTW - yeah I cheated a bit here and put my flash movie in for the URL source...

[Steve Van Doorn]

can you bump some people to help with this.
thank you

[Steve Van Doorn]

*Voters do (use) wikipedia and it needs work* -

[Tublecane]

“Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies, saying, ‘We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.’”

I’m no genius of the English language, but I think the unquoted part of that sentence contradicts the quoted part. She explicitly labels tying the war to energy as “nonsensical.”

[Steve Van Doorn]

yes good point.
please do what you can.

thank you

[Kevmo]

Thanks for opening this thread. It will help a lot, as far as I can tell.

Calling attention a few freepers and their ping lists.

[FreedomProtector]

The editing wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin&action=history

[Kevmo]

Here’s some info on the book banning.

The bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List (Michelle Malkin debunks yet another Palin smear)
MichelleMalkin.com ^ | September 6, 2008 | Michelle Malkin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2075911/posts
Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2008 1:36:23 AM by Stoat

[FreedomProtector]

Need help with editing wikipedia.

Pinging more folks who might have interest and experience in wikipedia editing.

If editing wikipedia isn’t your cup of tea, perhaps you have some links to articles that would be good sources on areas that are lacking.

[FatherFig1o155]

I’ll do what I can.

[GAB-1955]

I find that being on Wikipedia is very important, as it prevents radical thought from hijacking all the controversial articles. I have registered on Wikipedia, which enables me to get into articles which are locked. Normally I'm working on the articles related to American history and also for the U.S. Coast Guard, but the Palin articles sound like a key issue.

[FreedomProtector]

Obama’s page(s) could use some help as well. I can not find any mention Obama’s relationship with Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayres.

I have not yet registerd on wiki-—asking other freepers for help.

Here are pages and sources:

social circle fits personal and family life section?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ayersapr18,0,359588.story

“Since coming out of hiding in 1980, the couple have raised three boys in Chicago and become part of the fabric of their liberal South Side neighborhood. Neighbors said it’s only natural that Obama would know Ayers and Dohrn, who often open their homes for gatherings filled with lively discussions about politics, arts and social issues.”

Obama and his wife “are part of our neighborhood and part of our social circle,” said Elizabeth Chandler, a neighbor of Ayers’.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=&w=MA==

“It was at the Chicago home of [Bill] Ayers and [Bernardine] Dohrn that Obama, then an up-and-coming ‘community organizer,’ had his political coming out party in 1995.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2000562/posts

[VigilantAmerican]

Check it again. There’s no error in sentence structure or meaning, grammar, etc.; it’s an intentional way to slip in a jab against Republicans.

The problem is that the writer is seizing an alleged statement of Palin’s(who knows if she actually said that?) to frame the context and say that we are at war for oil, and that Palin admits it—
“in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources”
—in the same breath that she supposedly says it’s unnecessary. It’s a set up.

The very notion of war for oil is the same old false and hostile accusation of the left against the GOP, Bush, all of us. That alleged quote is included only for that reason, NOT mainly to show that Palin thinks that “war for oil” is senseless since we have our own resources.

Certainly one can concede realistically that oil is a key aspect of conflict in the Middle East; has been for a long time, will be in the future...but liberals try to mischaracterize our thoroughly justified reasons and moral imperatives for military involvement in the Persian Gulf strictly to avariciousness, imperialism, hegemony, and so on, and thereby disparage the motives and honor of the President, cabinet, troops, all of us.

[ETL]

For much more on the ObamaRat-communist connections, please check out my FR Home/About page. Everything there is well documented and linked directly to its source. And, I've added a bunch of new stuff that might interest you. Thanks.

Sample...

From David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com/DiscoverTheNetworks.org:
"FBI files from 1976, recently made public under the Freedom of Information Act, confirm the connections between Weatherman, Havana, and Moscow. Weatherman leaders like Mark Rudd traveled illegally to Havana in 1968 to engage in terrorist training. There, camps set up by Soviet KGB Colonel Vadim Kotchergine were educating Westerners both in Marxist philosophy and urban warfare."

___________________________________________________________

"Their founding document [the Weather Underground's] called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements [1] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."..." -Berger, Dan (2006). Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity. AK Press, pg 95.

___________________________________________________________

Bill Ayers TODAY (April 6, 2008), from his own red communist star-headed website, begging to debate communism vs capitalism with Sean Hannity and STILL calling for revolution!

"Imperialism. I’m against it, and if Sean Hannity and others were honest, this is the ground they would fight me on. Capitalism played its role historically and is exhausted as a force for progress: built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war, and racism, capitalism and imperialism must be defeated and a world revolution—a revolution against war and racism and materialism, a revolution based on human solidarity and love, cooperation and the common good —must win.

We begin by releasing our most hopeful dreams and our most radical imaginations: a better world is both possible and necessary.

Source: Bill Ayers' own website ___________________________________________________________

Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA [Maoist]
Revolution #63, October 1, 2006

Interview with Bill Ayers:
On Progressive Education, Critical Thinking and the Cowardice of Some in Dangerous Times

___________________________________________________________

ETL's FR Home/About page.
Again, all my material is linked directly to its source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl

[LS]

I went in, and it wouldn’t show any “edit” links-—which it normally does. And I’m a logged-in member. So I suspect they have this “protected” so that only their minions can edit a Palin entry.

[Tublecane]

“the writer is seizing an alleged statement of Palin’s...to frame the context and say that we are at war for oil”

I’m on to them. The author was clever, but not quick enough to get by me, I maintain. There is an error in meaning. Let’s proceed slowly.

“Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies”

What stands out about this fragment? “Palin,” “war,” and “energy.” “Tied” is not an incidiary verb, and that is the author’s intention. It will become all important later on.

“‘We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.’”

These are Palin’s words. If she was as deceitful as our author, she could not have chosen less commital words. Notice, she says, “...the reasons for war...” Not, “the reasons for this war,” or “...the reasons our war.” She could (and likely is) talking about war in general. As an argumentative tactic, she could be admitting a portion of the opposition’s argument in order to make her rebuttal of it more plausible. So far, Palin is wily.

After she admits that wars are fought over energy sources (she might have said scarce resources of any kind, from land to women to energy), she moves on to her thesis, “...which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.” What is nonsensical? Is it nonsensical for America to fight for energy sources when we have them at home if we dare to tap them? Or is it nonsensical that we WENT to war when we have energy at home.

The author wishes you to assume the latter. Palin, I think, meant the former. Remember, she said, “We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources...” She didn’t say, “...in many ways the reasonsfor this war,” or “the reasons for our war,” as she easily could have. There is no contextual evidence for the interpretation that Palin intended to say that our decision to go to war was faulty because we have energy at home. There is no evidence to conclude that she was saying the decision to go to war had anything to do with energy.

Returning to the author, what grounds has he for implying that Palin admitted that we traded blood for oil? Using the word “tied,” he will rest his case on the fact that Palin talked about the war and energy in the same sentence. She did, but there were mitigating words. The phrase “the reasons for war” is “tied” to “energy sources.” However, “We are a nation at war” is an independent clause severed from the clause “in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources” by the conjunction “and.”

“We are a nation at war” is not “tied” to “the reasons for war are fights over energy sources” grammatically, nor in meaning. Palin meant to say that some people think we went to war over oil, but that is nopnsensical because we have oil at home if we’d just drill for it. In conclusion, the sentence “Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies” is inacurate. If the author had said, “Palin has tied war to the quest for new energy supplies,” he’d be strictly accurate.

[manc]

is there no way to get in touch with them and point out that some info is incorrect?

Obama’s cult are up to a lot of this editing it seems

[LS]

If there is, I don’t know it.

[FreedomProtector]

I went in, and it wouldn’t show any “edit” links-—which it normally does. And I’m a logged-in member. So I suspect they have this “protected” so that only their minions can edit a Palin entry.

Given the bad links on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin

is it possible to get the typical wiki

“this article/section does not meet the standards”

disclaimer while it gets fixed.

or is that locked/protected as well?

[VigilantAmerican]

I’m having trouble finding adequate words of praise for your last post, so I’ll just apologize for not really getting what you were trying to say in your previous one!

Had I realized exactly what you so succintly stated in your first post, I wouldn’t have muddled the issue so elaborately in mine...although my general approach was on the scent—I just missed the real trick that you put your finger on. Thanks for going through it all the way with me. Phenomenal.

You say you’re no genius of the English language...you sure about that?

For my part I suppose I should plead sleep deprivation, and go straight to bed for now...resting well in knowing the fight is carried on by capable minds/hands... :)