||That is, if I may say, some of the most free-range, organically grown, disingenuous, ideologically marinated unself-awareness I've ever seen in the wild.
—Jon Stewart, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, June 27, 2011 - regarding Sean Hannity saying that he didn't hear any of the same sort of personal attacks coming from conservatives as from liberals.
Partisan conflicts on Wikipedia
- In general
- If you are a member of any ethnic, religious, or ideological group mentioned here (including, but not limited to, Irish/British, any combination in the Balkans, Russian/Eastern European, Taiwanese/mainland Chinese/Japanese/Korean - or any combination thereof, Turkish/Kurdish/Iranian/Arab/Caucasian - or any combination thereof, Turkish/from-any-Balkans-based-ethnic-group, Sinhalese/Tamil, Jewish/Muslim, or Capitalist/Marxist) or feel sympathetic towards said ethnic group, and you have three (3) or more blocks which mention edit warring or personal attacks against a member of or person sympathetic toward the opposite group, please go away. Yes, even though every time you were the neutral one, consensus was on your side, and the other editor or editors were the only ones out of line.
- If you are a member of or sympathetic to a religion or spiritual movement which was created or reinvigorated in the past 100 years (I know; your movement probably goes back to ancient times and was only survived by a few select people since, which is why I said or reinvigorated), and which emphasizes meditation, pseudoscience, and/or alternative medicine, and cannot fathom why someone would want to remove your edits when you just want to let the world know about the blessings of your movement, and (especially) if you feel that adding statements directly from your group's ideology is neutral because your group knows the truth, and you have three (3) or more blocks which mention edit warring or personal attacks, please go away.
- People who edit war on the same side and give each other barnstars for it have shown their true colors.
- United States
- If you think Fox News is on average biased to the left or straight-down-the-center, then you are probably a) right-wing, b) not very good at reading bias, and c) lack the competence to be writing Wikipedia in a neutral fashion.
- If you think The New York Times or NPR is on average biased to the right or straight-down-the-center, see above, inserting "left" for "right".
- If you think the most plausible explanation for harsh criticism of Barack Obama is racism, or think the most plausible explanation for harsh criticism of George W. Bush is his Christian faith, fine. But please don't edit any Wikipedia articles dealing with the above and allow that opinion into your edits.
- If you think that Obama wasn't born in the United States, or think that the World Trade Center was likely bombed due to a command by Dick Cheney, the US government, Jews, or absolutely anyone except for Al-Qaeda, fine. It's a common point of view, and I have relatives and friends who believe as much. But please don't edit any Wikipedia articles dealing with the above.
- Insertion related to above: blog entries, internet videos, and forwarded emails are not reliable sources.
- If you read about some outrageous form of media bias from Media Matters, the Daily Kos, the Media Research Center, (usually) The Huffington Post, or from any related organization, and immediately felt the need to come to Wikipedia and insert it despite opposition (because these editors clearly have an agenda!), please go away. If we added something every time Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, etc. said something stupid, or a biased network screwed up, we'd have 50 articles for every subject. Fortunately, we're neutral, and we don't add every goofup along the way.
- Money and the US
- Democrats say they hate the national debt (cf. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign pledge to cut it in half), but constantly increase spending without increasing taxes. Republicans say they hate the national debt, but constantly cut taxes without decreasing spending. Both claim they will rectify this in the future by increasing taxes/cutting spending, but it never happens. The sad truth is that they're both liars and don't deserve to serve in public office.
- Partisan bickering, US
- Partisan media will often come up with outrageous examples of idiocy by the other side. It's too bad they cherry pick so much, and leave out half the story. If you listen to them, don't get all your facts from them.
- Similarly, the media doesn't hire talk show hosts (radio, television) and newspaper columnists for their neutrality. Don't ever ever get all your facts from Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Paul Krugman, or Rush Limbaugh; they will purposefully leave out half the story.
- Why is it a bigger story in the US when Juan Williams is fired by NPR (probably unfair, but who cares?) than when thousands of South Sudanese are murdered?
- What does it say when it's a bigger story that a single teacher changes the word of a Christmas carol to remove 'gay' (due to snickering)  than when 13.3 million people are in dire need of food?
- If your best argument against the other side in a debate is that they're socialist, fascist or racist, keep trying. You'll need to explain how this is occurring in this context, and why it's bad (fascists actually did good things too; e.g., building the Autobahn). I once heard someone say government-sponsored prekindergarten was bad because it was "socialist", with no further explanation (as if the vast majority of Americans don't support public schools). Many have called critics of the massive fraud and waste in the recent Pigford settlement racist (as if non-racists would never criticize blatant fraud because it's perpetrated by black people).
- Most partisan bickering is navel-gazing of the worst type. It accomplishes nothing. It's political masturbation, really: Instead of spending all our time bitching, can't we go out and help some starving people or something? You're not helping the world be a better place by complaining to your friends about politics.
- International politics
- In most first world nations, if you want to be a politician, you study law. In China, if you want to be a politician, you study business. As such, Chinese law is often fickle, poorly crafted and unfair, while the law in the first world is not (albeit it's from far perfect). However, first world nations are also maintaining poorly thought out unsustainable business practices that will leave them crushed in the long run, a lá Greece/Ireland/California/etc. The Chinese are the creditors, and only stand to profit. They have gained the political clout that comes with being the creditors of other nations.
- People who grow up in a prosperous environment become spoiled. Can you imagine your grandfather's generation taking to the streets to oppose a slight increase in the age of retirement or of university tuition? Never - they understood that they had to make their own way through life, not off someone else's back. I find that very respectable.