Is republicans belief in the false flag nature of the capitol invasion sufficient to justify a neutral position writeup or, could they be presented as an assertion with (no evidence) flagging?
The underlying premise that wikipedia has bias, yes. I think in terms of gender, and English language dominance this is a given. The difference would be about qualities of "side" in these two sided examples.
There is a false equivalence problem the blog doesn't acknowledge: do flat earther views demand equality in pages about orbital mechanics. When it comes to politics things are more nuanced but in the long view, we don't write history presenting a neutral view of losing candidates in general. Their beliefs of process and equity must get reflected, but do they deserve equal ranking? Must every contested election have "we was robbed" at equal size?
The tilden election stands out as one which I think gets it about right. Historians agree it was difficult.
Jfk and Nixon needs thought. There were shenanigans both sides. Equal shenanigans? Maybe it's too soon to say. (That's a Zhou enlai joke about the French revolution)
So to tie this back to the examples he gives, you think mentioning that "black men are much more likely to commit crimes that might bring a call to the police" as a possible explanation for the disproportionate police killings, is akin to giving flat earther views equal weight in orbital mechanics?
From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind.
If there is widespread consensus among experts (typically academics) that one of the beliefs is idiotic, then it's not 'neutral' to pretend otherwise.
3 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 15.7 ms ] threadThe underlying premise that wikipedia has bias, yes. I think in terms of gender, and English language dominance this is a given. The difference would be about qualities of "side" in these two sided examples.
There is a false equivalence problem the blog doesn't acknowledge: do flat earther views demand equality in pages about orbital mechanics. When it comes to politics things are more nuanced but in the long view, we don't write history presenting a neutral view of losing candidates in general. Their beliefs of process and equity must get reflected, but do they deserve equal ranking? Must every contested election have "we was robbed" at equal size?
The tilden election stands out as one which I think gets it about right. Historians agree it was difficult.
Jfk and Nixon needs thought. There were shenanigans both sides. Equal shenanigans? Maybe it's too soon to say. (That's a Zhou enlai joke about the French revolution)