Replies

See my 43 and 45.

Thats exactly right. Dead on analysis. I do not have time to sit and babysit an online internet article day and night to make sure nobody puts twisty words into it. Maybe some conservatives who have no other life whatsoever can do that for as long as they can before they get IP banned for being a problem user.

If I try to make a logical point to defend an article, nobody wants to listen to those logical points. The loudest win, those have the most perseverance win, and those who are absorbed into the long running "community leaders" group win. It is a social group, not an encyclopedia.

I wrote quite a few articles on the Civil War. They were not biased. I wrote articles on US Colored Troops, the Little Rock Nine and the Little Rock Crisis, Tuskeegee Airmen, I wrote articles about both the Sons of Confederate Veterans and Grand Army of the Republic. When I tried to put some info on slavery into a Civil War article, my non-biased approach gave me no credit. My changes were reverted because the fact/statistic I put in the article might be seen to be supportive of the Confederate side. Never mind that it was a well established and accepted fact/statistic, it did not support the commonly accepted views.

There is an element of propping up the commonly accepted rather than presenting facts. There is also a liberal bias, not in the way articles are written necessarily, but in the way controversies are resolved and who resolves them and which side must bear the burden of proof.