Conservapedia:Ask questions

Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here.

A STRATEGIC QUESTION: 1) All Wikipedia information is free for copying, as long as the the GNU FDL licence is scrupulously applied; 2) Wikipedia contains an enormous amount of information. Now: Why don't we start a massive program of copying information from Wikipedia into Conservapedia, obviously selectively, that is removing what is un-acceptable for us? In this way we would no loger be ridiculed for our many "skeleton-like" entries, and at the same time we will achieve more influence on users. Seems to be perfectly legal to me.

On the matter of our influence: Since we (hopefully) want to have a global impact, would it not be reasonable to give up on our commandment pertaining to the American-only spelling? I am not sure if the following argument is approppriate, but Jesus Christ, as well as His Apostles, insisted on spreading the Truth to entire humanity, not just to own Nation.

Christianapedia

Why not just call it "Christianapdeia" and be done with it? The bias in this site is astounding! Came here hoping for less bias, and have been shocked at the lack of information and citing of crackpot sources.

Also, why is "sex" deleted when so many conservatives (teens included) need this type of factual information. Studies show that many conservative teens receive terrible information when it comes to sexual education. There are so many sources that are poor, this is a good opportunity to provide solid, factual information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ensie (talk)

---

Bias

If wikipedia is "liberal biased" I assume it would be because that's the way the world is biased because the people who write for it are not censored unless it is blatantly wrong. I came to this site and thought that as the homepage calls it "more accurate" info. Unfortunately, I seemed to have stumbled on less accurate information. Note, that some articles leave out anything that doesn't have to do with a specific biased message. (Example: the abortion article doesn't even explain what it is, just why it's bad.)

My real question is, why will this be deleted, instead of talked about and addressed on your site?

Users are probably less likely to get blocked here than on Wikipedia. But as to you central claim, bias arises most easily in unrestrained groups of people, like gangs, mobs and political parties. We have a set of simple, clear rules to keep us from ending up like Wikipedia. Check out our list of Bias in Wikipedia. Thanks and hope you can contribute. By the way, the abortion page does define what it is, though I expect everyone knows that already.--Aschlafly 20:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how you could possibly claim that this site is currently less biased than wikipedia. This site on many topics only even mentions the Biblical literalist Protestant point of view, let alone allows facts that contradict things like the YEC view to even be mentioned. Wikipedia may or may not be biased, but it is at least more objective in the sense that it mostly just describes things. This sites articles push a very very specific point of view in nearly every single article.Plunge 14:40, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

You have to be specific. As I said on MSNBC this morning, Wikipedia automatically converts a search for "Great Flood" into an entry on mythology. Conservapedia does nothing even remotely similar to such bias.--Aschlafly 14:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Not censored? Please see this [1] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless received a community ban so the pejoratives aimed at Paul Weyrich will stick. RobS 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

American spelling is descended from illiterates who left england/europe to colonise the 'new world'. E.g. Favor should be spelled Favour, nite should be spelled Night. After all the language is English and therefore the spellings should be English. Yet another example of American terretorialism and intolerance - if it 'aint American it's bad, if it 'aint Christian - it's bad. your claim that the abortion issue is biased on Wikipedia is just a joke. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, made the following statements.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

There are a multitude of similar statements, Religion never was, nor was meant to be enshrined in law. He believed in a society where Government and Religion were a seperate. If Christian values are enforced by law - then surely when you get to heaven, you will be judged on deeds that you committed voluntarily, not those you were 'told' to do. God gave man free will for a purpose, surely to not use free will and judgement is an insult to God for this gift.

By the way, I am an American Christian, not liberal nor conservative nor any other 'term' that pigeonholes someone - I am a free thinker, and use the brain that was bestowed upon me by God to question, research etc. So many of the worlds religions share the same facts/events (Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and the Torah). Maybe, these religions started out as one, but disversified/split as different sects had different beliefs. We all worship one God, just in our different way. Maybe it's time we focused on the 'true' meaning of Christ, when was the last time you invited a homeless person to share your home for a while? When was the last time you went out looking for a drug-user to help? How many times have you looked with disdain upon someone because they 'were'nt Christian'? Christ deliberately whould seek out those at the bottom, to help and nurture them - when was the last time, as a Christian, you did that? I have done these things, and continue to do so, I don't preach, proletize or lecture, I help - surely a better way of spreading gods word than empty talk and posturing.

I fully expect this post to be deleted, after all, it saddens me to say our once great Country had become so intolerant and abusive of anyone different. Who would be lesser in the eyes of God - The Christian who only helps/deals with/associates with Christians or the Atheist who helps people in need because they need help, regardless of their faith.

Thankyou

Scope

What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--Smalltownhick 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

'Expanding', I'd argue 'Inflating' is a more appropriate semantic.

Parochial language commandment

I just reflexively corrected (at least) 5 spelling errors in the above paragraphs.

I am curious why the American version of spellings is considered so important that it is a "commandment" rather than simply an editorial policy?

I think it is acceptable for you to pick and use any English dialect you wish as a policy, and American English is one of the more popular ones, but I think it capricious that you would ban otherwise valuable contributions from someone for using their own. Simply edit the articles for spelling as you see fit, as I did above.

Brian Wilson 20:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Historical Bias

The basis of Conservapedia seems to be solidly in History. If you search Rome it tells you of the peninsula that housed an empire rather than the capital of a modern country. We need to get busy getting this site up to date.

Purpose?

I'm genuinely confused on what the true purpose of this project is. Is the intention to actually to build an actual encyclopedia which is balanced, accurate and free of superfluous information or is the intention to "balance out" wikipedia by providing an oppositely biased viewpoint? For example, the Gun control article seems to at least be written in a bias tone and it doesn't cite any sources. BalancedBudget 22:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yet another example of American terretorialism and intolerance - if it 'aint American it's bad, if it 'aint Christian - it's bad. your claim that the abortion issue is biased on Wikipedia is just a joke. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, made the following statements.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

There are a multitude of similar statements, Religion never was, nor was meant to be enshrined in law. He believed in a society where Government and Religion were a seperate. If Christian values are enforced by law - then surely when you get to heaven, you will be judged on deeds that you committed voluntarily, not those you were 'told' to do. God gave man free will for a purpose, surely to not use free will and judgement is an insult to God for this gift.

By the way, I am an American Christian, not liberal nor conservative nor any other 'term' that pigeonholes someone - I am a free thinker, and use the brain that was bestowed upon me by God to question, research etc. So many of the worlds religions share the same facts/events (Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and the Torah). Maybe, these religions started out as one, but disversified/split as different sects had different beliefs. We all worship one God, just in our different way. Maybe it's time we focused on the 'true' meaning of Christ, when was the last time you invited a homeless person to share your home for a while? When was the last time you went out looking for a drug-user to help? How many times have you looked with disdain upon someone because they 'were'nt Christian'? Christ deliberately whould seek out those at the bottom, to help and nurture them - when was the last time, as a Christian, you did that? I have done these things, and continue to do so, I don't preach, proletize or lecture, I help - surely a better way of spreading gods word than empty talk and posturing.

I fully expect this post to be deleted, after all, it saddens me to say our once great Country had become so intolerant and abusive of anyone different. Who would be lesser in the eyes of God - The Christian who only helps/deals with/associates with Christians or the Atheist who helps people in need because they need help, regardless of their faith.

Thankyou

EDT 13th March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr flibble (talk)

Where are you getting your "true meaning of Jesus Christ"? You're not getting it out of the Bible. Sure, Jesus encouraged people to be charitable. But He also said,

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

And BTW: the context under which He said that was that Judas Iscariot had just complained about a woman breaking a three-hundred-dinar vial of fragrant oil over Jesus' head. (Well, everyone was complaining about it, but Judas the loudest.) Judas didn't care about the poor; he just wanted to make up the deficit in the apostolic treasury, which he had emptied out earlier.

Now you're not the kind of embezzler that Judas was. But what shall we call one who wants to be awfully generous--with other people's money? I hardly think that Jesus would approve of that.--TerryH 12:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

References

Is this a joke?? I've never seen anything so absurd.

The Mark quote is from Jesus, the John cite was talking about Judas Iscariot. --Cracker^talk 10:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Site acting up?

I keep seeing two things happen: Pages come up completely blank (usually article), and pages try to download instead of display. (Usually when I try to save after editing). Anyone else get this? --Scrap 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I've seen it, too. I thought my Internet connection was at fault. This site must be seeing so much traffic that it can't always keep up!--TerryH 10:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The site was displaying blank pages for me yesterday. When I refreshed them, they would come up. As you can see, the look of the site has been modified. Perhaps that caused the slowness, because everything is normal for me now. As for trying to download pages, in your user preferences, under the Editing tab, make sure "Use external editor by default" is unchecked. ~ SharonS ^Talk! 10:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been having th same problems for a few days. I'm guessing it's a bandwidth issue; also checking in with a dns server checker showed some minor problems between the two dns that conservapedia runs. If the traffic gets higher they may want to think about adding another server or four.

From the "recent changes page" it looks like the site was manually taken down to prevent vandalism. But that's just speculation on my part. --Cracker^talk 10:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Point of view

What's the policy here on points of view in articles? E.g. evolution: the first section is on transitional forms. There is clearly another point of view to this article - should I add it?. Even a Christian, fundamentalist, creationist organisation argues here [2] that transitional forms is a fairly weak argument to use in the debate with evolution - should I add that? Regards The Land 16:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Censorship in China?

Wikipedia is censored by the CCP for being too liberal and pro-democracy. Does anyone know if the same is true of Conservapedia? Wikinterpreter

I don't believe that this site is a big enough blip on the radar yet. However, if it ever does become so I suspect it will too. The reason being that it is pro-American and pro-Christianity (China and the Roman Catholic Church have some disputes about state controlled religion). --Mtur 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)