Talk:Conservapedia terms

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Minister's son

Yes, okay, I can grant that this term was invented here. But why? Isn't it just different wording for what has long been known as a PK, or Preacher's kid? Perhaps I should invent the term Missionary's Son, despite the term MK or Missionary's kid already being in long use? Philip J. Rayment 09:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Not familiar with "preacher's kid," and that sounds slightly derogatory. We wouldn't say "Kid of Man" instead of "Son of Man," would we? The Minister's son is to describe an insight that liberals deny.--Aschlafly 09:03, 16 February 2008 (EST)
maybe we could borrow from Dusty Springfield and have "Son of a Preacher Man" ;-) Sawneybeane 09:05, 16 February 2008 (EST)
PK is usually used as a derogatory term, while Minister's son is being used on CP as a complimentary description. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
No, although I can understand why Andy though so, PK is not a derogatory term at all. Well, it may be used that way by some, but it is (relatively) commonly used by PKs (and MKs) themselves. Just have a look at the Google hits for "PK MK preacher kid missionary". Admittedly it is not used to refer to people who have made significant accomplishments, but apart from that, and that it is not limited to males, it means essentially the same thing. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Also, you can purchase a range of PK and MK clothing and other items! [1][2] Andy, you're going to have to list this under "something I've learnt today"!! :-) Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 16 February 2008 (EST)
OK, the uses on the links you cite are not derogatory, but they are not complimentary either. Like the word "kid" itself, it is disfavored in an educational context like ours here.--Aschlafly 10:05, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Swift-Boating reversion

Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed in an original manner by one or more editors on Conservapedia.
Swift-Boating was developed in an original manner by me. On Conservapedia, it's telling the truth about Liberals. --Crocoite 17:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Actually, you did not develop it in an original manner. Your article was created on February 24th. The definition you provide was taken, verbatim, from the Michelle Malkin article on February 21st. You didn't develop anything. --Jdellaro 17:16, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Even though the word was already defined, we are using it here to describe Liberals - not just Democrats. --Crocoite 17:20, 6 March 2008 (EST)
So by expanding it from "Democrats" to "Liberals", you are honestly suggesting that you developed it in an original manner? If I change the word Republicans to conservatives in an entry---I've "developed" a new entry? Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. I'm calling for the judges, b/c that obvious rip-off from the Malkin article doesn't pass as original.--Jdellaro 17:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)
And to add, Crocoite---you didn't use it here to describe Liberals. In the "original" entry---you have it defining Democrats. It's a quote from the Malkin article. You didn't develop anything! --Jdellaro 17:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
It doesn't have to pass any liberal smell test btw. --Crocoite 17:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Should I make a "liberal smell test" article?
By the by, I think by "smell test," he meant, " doesn't seem even colorably to have been invented by you." It was just slang.
See, now you're just forcing it. I'm not sure that ex-post invention, and unique usage by one editor (the very one who claims to have invented it) should count. Crocoite, cut your losses and call it a day.-PhoenixWright 17:33, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Blatant plagiarism has nothing to do with the "liberalness" of smell tests - why not just 'fess up, revert the edit in question and be done with it? AliceBG 17:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

I'm not very good at searching (or the search tool in MediaWiki isn't very good, you pick), but I couldn't find a use of the term "Swift-boating" on Conservapedia... which makes it an odd "Conservapedia term". Aziraphale 17:49, 6 March 2008 (EST)

San Francisco Values?

Pelosi and fellow liberals have been termed "San Francisco liberals" or been deemed to have "San Francisco values" for quite some time, likely predating the CP article of the same name. It's been used throughout the 1990's by conservatives, and been expanded upon by Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly for example. While I don't doubt that great work has been put into the entry here on CP, I wonder if it's "expanded upon" the term enough to give it the claim of a CP term. Thoughts?--Jareddr 10:35, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

I admit the article is young, but hopefully it will be expanded soon to have genuine ideas unique to CP. I have some thoughts germinating for future edits, but as of now there's only been a sole contributor to the article, which is not the case with most of the other pages in the list. In any case, I think the link should stay so that the page is not forgotten, since it falls in line with the other pages in the list. -Foxtrot 17:25, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Namespace

  • Maybe this should be in the Conservapedia namespace? -CSGuy 17:47, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Personal tools