Wednesday, January 20, 2010

RELIGION, Wikipedia, Scott Brown and Sarah Palin

I did a Wikipedia check on SCOTT BROWN just to look into some information I didn't know about him. There was a subtitle down near the end which said RELIGION and it talked about his Protestant church and how his family's also connected with a Catholic church they have raised money for.

I thought having the religion aspect of a guy whose religion was really never discussed or particularly interesting was weird, so I Wikipedia'd Democrats TED KENNEDY and JOHN KERRY, both known to be devout Catholics, none of which was specifically discussed under a separate subtitle. So, I looked up SARAH PALIN and there was a RELIGION subtitle again. So, I checked JOE LIEBERMAN, the first Jew to run for president, thinking they must have a RELIGION subtitle for him. But, no religion subtitle. I can't think of another politician who's had religion brought up in the public arena, but if you have one you remember, check Wikipedia and see if they have a separate RELIGION subtitle and information there on him. I found it odd that both Palin and Brown do, but not the others.
I know what Wikipedia is........but I thought this was something worth noting....just another oddity that seems like bias in some way.


Anonymous said...

Chalk up another triumph for Z in detecting and exposing the immense bias that exists everywhere in media and internet public information gathering sites.

The difference between the pervasive left wing bias and our own is that we right wingers (if that's what we are) do not pretend to be objective sources of UNBIASED information.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

I don't even really look at the religion of a candidate for office. Sure it's nice to have shared religious values, but I think we get enough imposed values out of office holders of the "for our own good" variety. I don't vote to promote a religion.

I'd vote for an animist pagan with a green mohawk and enough eyebrow ring piercings to hang a shower curtain if their agenda furthered libertarian and conservative causes and especially if they viewed government social programs as things to destroy.

But, I'll settle for an upright Christian suit-n-tie type that'll do it too.

cube said...

Good eye, Z. It's a good idea to keep on eye on these libbies.

BTW the word verification was "dimpitt"... it seems applicable ;-)

Fredd said...

I know that Wikipedia has quite a bit of political left wing bias, but I use it extensively anyway. I just make sure that the item I am researching doesn't have a political context to it, such as 'The Munsters,' or 'Dodge Brothers Touring Car.'

Not much they can do to fudge the info on those topics.

(...and my word verification was sedwate, not quite the bang for the buck Cube got with dimpitt).

You are definitely taking your chances on getting the straight poop on Scott Brown (or Rush Limbaugh) using Wiki.

Ducky's here said...

It's odd for Brown since he never mentions it. Kerry either, calling him a devout anything except maybe a devout arse is odd.

Palin makes a point of letting everyone know she's one of the chosen so that makes sense.

shoprat said...

Like Snopes, Wikipedia is very useful as long as you are not searching for something with religious or political connotations.
Then both become cesspools of politically correct dogma.

FrogBurger said...

I use wikkipedia to learn about science and mathematical concepts (e.g graph theory) most of the time. I don't trust it for the rest or double check across other sites.

FrogBurger said...

The Obama's administration uses Wikkipedia to vet people like the future TSA boss :))

Leticia said...

I have heard that wikipedia are very liberal and are indeed biased. Look up Obama and it is all praise.

Z said...

I look at Wikipedia for dates, jobs people held, etc., that's pretty difficult to fudge or show bias in.

FT...I should have kept a log years ago; I could have written a book on leftwing bias...thanks..xx

Beamish, WHO CARES WHAT SOMEONE'S RELIGION IS? I care about the bias, that's why I mentioned it..that's all.

Cube...DIMPITT..sometimes they just WORK, don't they? I should have kept a list of those, too...they sometimes SO fit the post!

Fredd..welcome to geeeeZ...I'm with you on Wiki.

Ducky, Palin ALWAYS makes sense :-)

Shoprat, FB,'ve got to be careful with Wiki, Snopes, etc...but you need SOMEWHERE to get dates, jobs, family names, etc!!

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Of course. Simple. Listing religion makes those individuals religious zealots. You don't mention it for Leftists, it just doesn't exist. Period.


FairWitness said...

Thanks for the heads up, Z.

Anonymous said...

Other public office holders whose religion has been topic of discussion? Every conservative Justice on the Supreme Court. Bush 43. Obama. The Muslim from Minnesota (Ellis?).


Chuck said...

I wonder if it is because of the different people posting the bios. Wikipedia is user edited (this is my understanding, I don't know much about it). For libs, religion isn't always as important. For conservatives it is. I don't find it that unusual that if a lib is posting about a lib there may not be an emphasis on religion but the reverse may be true of conservatives.

Again, not a wikipedia expert nor a big user of the site, just a theory.

beamish said...

I like Wikipedia. It says what I want it to say.

For a few minutes anyway.

highboy said...

John Kerry tried hammering away about his Christianity in one of his presidential debates, even suggesting that he was more of a Christian than Bush. But surprise surprise....

El Cerdo Ignatius said... I Wikipedia'd Democrats TED KENNEDY and JOHN KERRY, both known to be devout Catholics, none of which was specifically discussed under a separate subtitle.

Uh... don't want to get your main point off track, since it's well taken, but I'd just thought I'd suggest changing the word "known" to "believed by many". You can't be pro-abortion and a devout Catholic at the same time.

FairWitness said...

Good morning Z, I apologize for this being off topic, but I wanted to share this link with your readers:

Dick Armey wrote a column yesterday about Scott Brown's win and what it means to conservatives. He was part of the original Contract with America and he mentioned a website from the Houston chapter of the Tea Party Movement whereby they're crafting a new Contract "from" America, similar to the Contract "with" America that led to Republicans taking control of the House. Their website has a survey they want all of us to grade for a 10 - 20 point platform.

Thought your blog might a good place to publicize it. It's really terrific, Z.

Here's the link to it:

Z said...

El Cerdo...excellent point. And, probably, another great example of hypocrisy in the Left, no matter what religion they are....AND a 'pass' by the media and others who hear Kennedy and Kerry's stances and still mention "Catholic" quite a lot.

Chuck, you make an interesting point...the wiki bios I've read are usually favorable to liberals and not to conservatives, but it COULD be conservatives who's written Palin and Brown's and that conservative applauded and wanted noted their faith. Except Palin makes her faith more known and Brown never has.

Z said...

FairWitness.....I have no problem with OFF TOPIC if it's something like that...Thanks for posting it... I was just going to email you.

FairWitness said...

Thanks, Z. I appreciate it. The article by Dick Armey can be read here:

"Dick Armey on 1994 vs. 2010"

FairWitness said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Those who hate Christians are

When given any chance to do harm
to believers...they quietly plant
their seeds into the minds of the

Wikipedia? Hey it's just a "dictionary".
Not really.
Like our textbooks, a cleaver way
to do harm to our basic Christian
values and to those who give them praise. It's everywhere folks !

It is the slow creep, to their desired end...defeat Christianity in the USA. Kill it off in any way possible.

Guess it's good that we have GOD
on our side ! Hee, Hee !!

Anonymous said...

God is the embodiment and perfect expression of Truth -- among other essential things.

Therefore, anyone -- any society -- that fails to do its best to serve the interests of Truth is destined to fail.

It's as simple as that.

~ FreeThinke