“Culture of Death” is not a subset of “U.S. Politics”

Hat tip to Jill Stanek, by way of Ryan Sayre Patrico at First Things Blog, for calling attention to Wikipedia's deletion of its former article on the "Culture of Death."

Patrico writes:

“Culture of Death” can still be found as a subheading under “Culture of Life,”
so that might have something to do with it—but the website often has
entries that discuss terms with their own entries elsewhere.

Yeah, Wikipedia still features a “Culture of Death” subhead in the “Culture of Life" article — as a subsection under the heading "U.S. Politics."

Um. No, Sorry, Wikipedia. "Culture of Death" is not a subset of "U.S. Politics." The term was coined by a global figure, Pope John Paul II, to describe a global cultural phenomenon.

If you want to subsume "culture of death" and "culture of life" into one article, that's your editorial look-out. But don't marginalize the concept further by pretending that it's all about the United States. For one thing, it's America-centric. For another, it looks like glaring editorial bias.

P.S. Jill Stanek has screen grabs of older versions of the "Culture of Death" article, and someone else referenced the Wayback Machine. Doesn't Wikipedia have a way to directly reference previous versions of articles? Or does that go away if an article is deleted entirely?

8 thoughts on ““Culture of Death” is not a subset of “U.S. Politics””

  1. SDG,
    On any Wikipedia article, to view an earlier version, click the History tab, then click the timestamp of the old version you want to look at.
    Hope this helps!

  2. Internet Time Machine only removes articles entirely if the person who posted them requests it. I don’t know how that works with Wikipedia. Presumably, some representative of the organizers (like Jimmy Wales) has to request that.

  3. On any Wikipedia article, to view an earlier version, click the History tab, then click the timestamp of the old version you want to look at.

    But can you do it for a deleted article?

  5. Wikipedia is dominated by leftists, who will only allow one way of thinking to be reflected in the article.
    Balance? No. Full tilt to the left.

  6. Whoops, sorry SDG. I misunderstood. No, I don’t think you can do it for a deleted article.

  8. Also, the following comment was posted on Jill’s blog:

    Jill, I’m a Wikipedia admin, and I’m interested in helping the articles in question to represent a balanced point-of-view.
    The “culture of death” article had, over time, become a mere dictionary definition, and so it was moved to Wiktionary. The article on Wikipedia became a redirect to the “culture of life” article.
    If you feel (or anyone else here feels) that “culture of death” is a concept distinct from simply being a negation of “culture of life”, and deserves its own article, then I will help you make this happen. Please post a comment to my Wikipedia Talk page. Help making the “culture of life” article explain the “culture of death” idea in more detail would also be appreciated.
    I do feel that the “culture of life” article needs more work and more references, especially from the conservative viewpoint. I will help you with this also. Let me know if you feel you’re having trouble making it fairly represent the facts.
    I am not pro-abortion, pro-socialism, or liberal, but yes, I am an atheist. I don’t use Wikipedia as a soapbox; I’m confident that the principles in which I believe can hold their own when presented fairly and accurately, without needing me to add bias.

    Brian Kendig, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian_Kendig

Comments are closed.