Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

2008-07-15T11:58:01Z

Faizaguo: /* AGAINST */

Opinions please, both for and against:

== FOR ==
conservapedia has thousands of trustworthy articles. 50something, you base this on your experiences with ONE article([[Adultery]]), right? look at some others.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

50something thousand trustworthy articles? conservapedia's main page says it only has 16000 pages.

ITs Called Conservapedia, since it has part of the word "Conservtive" in it you know it will represent a fair and balanced point of view, well I guess it depends how you look at it. -RG :]
:This is not exactly a compelling argument. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:53, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I have found Conservapedia constantly improving with filling out information and removing imbedded vandalism from its early days when there wasn't as much checking. I read a comment from many months ago complaining that there were no internal links between articles - now, that's largely a complaint of the past. While some areas are sparse, the information presented is accurate. It also gives a conservative view that is often not allowed in other forums and as such provides an important source for information that could be difficult to find otherwise. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== AGAINST ==

I have to say, I keep up with Conservapedia daily, mostly because I don't agree with the views of the website. I do have to point out something. Conservapedia constantly points out smears against conservatives and false articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet found a smear against Conservapedia itself. Why not lay off the smearing of other sites when they aren't smearing you in the first place? From Steven, Digitamer81

Of course not, not yet. the entire goal is to eliminate bias, add facts, and eventually make it reliable. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. it is an encyclopedia that tells consevitives what they want to hear and forces conservitive ideals upon others.{{unsigned|1718}}

:Oh, be reasonable. It doesn't force ideals on anyone. No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
::Agreed, but there's obviously some sort of agenda here which favours loaded language and non-encyclopedic coverage (most notably, denigratory comments and value judgements in the entry for [[liberal]]). Ultimately this makes for a less objective, reliable source. Sorry guys. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)

No. An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion. Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes. References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference. For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
::adultery is one out of what, 9000 articles? what other examples do you have?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::Hahhaha. Where do I begin?[[User:50something|50something]]
:::Bohdan, look at [[Special:Popularpages]]. Most of them, well, suck. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I guess, but i dont think that they represent the majority of articles here. I have found that many of the non-controversial articles are reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Bohdan, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. I'm trying to do my part, as I am sure you are. I know Hoji has done a lot.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:So that you know someone is addressing you?[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. [[User:50something|50something]]
:where is the opinion in the [[Lindisfarne]] article? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. [[User:50something|50something]]

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know ''which'' parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slant, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. [[User:50something|50something]]

Oh, also - sysops - [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], for example - are guilty of 'editing the record'. In the case of the sysop quoted, you will see how often he removes comments from his own User:Talk page. Changing the record of history is one of the most dangerous sins against knowledge, and was popularly used by [[Stalin]] among others. [[User:50something|50something]]

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable. I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia. Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar? [[User:50something|50something]]

///It should be noted that not even Wikipedia is viable as a scholarly source. I.E. it should never cited in any kind of research. With that said I think a good rule is to not even CONSIDER using conservapedia as any kind of factual outlet.

Commandment 13: "We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights."

No, that's really interesting... Editors don't have to justify their statements. That's good, I mean it's only the process by which actual factual encyclopedia's are rigorously put through. Why should you do it here?///

Depends on how you classify trustworthy. Obviously some materials are going to offend people who are more to a liberal side. Come on-it is biased-check the main page about Obama if you don't believe me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:58, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2008-07-15T11:49:44Z

Faizaguo: /* No */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:Faizaguo

2008-06-18T17:04:03Z

Faizaguo:

Hello!!! I had to make this account because I wanted to make some serious contributions to Conservapedia-ok, mainly the debate pages about Wikipedia, since I am a Wikipedian, and I am fed up with the misunderstandings between you two groups of people. Seriously. You can choose to either: 

1. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Have your say]] or 
2. [[Special:Random|Take a deep breath and calm down]] or 
3. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Have your say again!]] 
4. [[Uncyclopedia|I'm leaving, this is not my page]]

I hope you enjoy your visit to this [[Britain|little island no-one has heard of]]. Yes it does exist, contrary to [[America|popular beliefs]].

User:Faizaguo

2008-06-18T16:53:43Z

Faizaguo: New page: Hello!!! I had to make this account because I wanted to make some serious contributions to Conservapedia-ok, mainly the debate pages about Wikipedia, since I am a Wikipedian, and I am fed ...

Hello!!! I had to make this account because I wanted to make some serious contributions to Conservapedia-ok, mainly the debate pages about Wikipedia, since I am a Wikipedian, and I am fed up with the misunderstandings between you two groups of people. Seriously. You can choose to either: 

1. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Have your say]] or 
2. [[Special:Random|Take a deep breath and calm down]] or 
3. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Have your say again!]] 

I hope you enjoy your visit to this [[Britain|little island no-one has heard of]].

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-06-18T16:43:24Z

Faizaguo:

{{debate}}
What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-06-18T16:42:04Z

Faizaguo:

{{debate}}

With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions.
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied.
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.
::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work.
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''" and "''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''": True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''. This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the "scientists as an authority" argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.
::::: "''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''": No, "deep time" was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.
::::: "''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''": Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.
::::: "''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''": Yes. Faith is trust ''based on evidence''. If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.
::::: "''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''": Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method. To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator. Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''. The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:Most of that post is simply assertion. When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly. Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''. The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid. All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it. Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information! That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::I have to disagree here - genetic variation rarely introduces or destroys genetic information - it, more accurately, mangles it. Usually you get two results - missense and nonsense. Missense is something that reads incorrectly - usually something small, like a substitution of one base pair for another. It can have no effect, or be harmful or beneficial. Then there's nonsense. Nonsense is when the resulting genetic code is totally, completely unreadable. This usually occurs when you get a frameshift mutation - since genes are read in codons of 3s, adding one or two base pairs or deleting one or two will 'shift' every single base pair down the chain. This results in more dire genetic disorders. Now, how this relates to evolution: missense is actually a good thing: it can introduce new alleles (variations of a gene - usually just dominant/recessive) into a population, add new genetic strings, duplicate a chromosome, etc. So long as it doesn't result in that organism being infertile or dying, it will cause a change that can be compounded in its successors. Lots of evolutionary trends can be explained by gross mutations that, by a quirk of luck, did not end up killing the organism. The best example I can think of is the duplication of the hox gene (a homeobox gene; it determines how body segments develop) in invertebrates. As you go from invertebrate to vertebrate, you find more and more copies of the hox gene; invertebrates have one, simple vertebrates have two, vertebrates with seperate, complex jaws have three. These large mutations, when they don't kill the mutant, can be passed on and slowly, gradually edited via trial and error until you have an astonishingly interesting result. The best example of genetic information being "introduced" and resulting in a beneficial (to the organism) evolution are antibacterial resistant disease strains; bacteria reproduce at an incredibly fast rate, and as such a bacterial population has quite a few different mutations and alleles in its gene pool at any given time. As such, when you expose the population to waves of antibiotics, the tiny fraction of bacteria that survive by a combination of luck and good genetics pass these genetic changes onto their offspring. Not only this, but bacteria can also pass the genetic changes on to other, non-related bacteria by conjugation and plasmid exchange. Anyways...Yeah. Kinda run out of steam, but there's a shortish explanation of the mechanisms I believe power evolution.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion. And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::: "''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''": In order to "support evolution", the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''. Creation also predicts a "rich history of different species of animal[s]", so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.
::::: "''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''": [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.
::::: "''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''": They show no such thing. Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they "show" that that's what actually happened. That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.
::::: "''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''": Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave. And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.
::::: "''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''": Huh? What's that?
::::: "''...or 'flood extinctions...''": How are there "too many"?
::::: "''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''": See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.
::::: "''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''": They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Actually, I'd say fossils pretty well _DIS_Prove the [http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm Whole Silly Flood Story]. If all those animals really had died at once, you'd expect they'd be a lot more mixed-up, with whales and stonefish next to trilobites and Devonian fishes, instead of being neatly arranged in strata, with the animals that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy tells us are the oldest at the bottom, and more recently-evolved ones higher up. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: So you know enough about flood geology to know the processes involved well enough to make predictions about how things would be buried? The ones at the bottom are generally the ones that lived on the bottom of the seas and would have been buried first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually, I'd expect the first ones to be buried would be LAND ANIMALS, who '''can't swim'''. But instead we find invertebrate water-dwelling animals at the bottom-most layers, with the vertebrate fish appearing further up, then the amphibians, then the reptiles, THEN mammals. A result that looks to me like it makes more sense from an evolution-based model than a Genesis-based one. Go read the article I pointed to, it goes into a LOT more detail than I can. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Massive undersea landslides have been noted travelling at high speeds that quickly bury anything in their paths, whether they can swim or not. Land animals could initially escape to higher ground before being buried, particularly the larger, more mobile animals, whilst amphibians and reptiles, which can't move as fast, would be buried sooner.
::::::::: As far as your linked article is concerned, it has so many misrepresentations in the first two paragraphs that I didn't bother reading any further.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Wait, wait. These undersea landslides move so fast that nothing can escape them.... escept the things that moved to higher ground. Which is why we find Devonian-era giant dragonflies in the same strata as modern birds.... oh, wait. No we don't.
::::::::::I am totally unsurprised you didn't read it. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

One can believe in evolution and God. If we look at the theory of evolution, it is widely believed that life started from extremely simple almost non-living organisms in the thermal vents of the oceans. Who created these thermal vents? Who created the earth? Who created the sun? who created the solar system? Who created anything and everything in our universe? There has to be something. Evolution could just be a part of the way things happen. The same way an egg hatches or ice melts. It's all science. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
: See [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Are evolution and the idea of God contradictory?|here]] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Okay. Now, how does one go about ''scientifically'' testing for God? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::It is not possible to test for God. The only thing people have is what they read and are taught. For all we know, God may have been produced to explain the unexplainable, to take away some of the natural curiousity that comes with human nature. People have the need to believe that there is something more to life than just what we sense. We need a reason for what we do in this life and most humans need the comfort of knowing that there is a place for them when they die. Whether you believe or not, God is the only thing we have to explain the creation of our surroundings. Science is what we have to explain the ways of our surroundings. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}

::: I missed Gulik5' question. My answer would be contained in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], the section about "Proving God", although that assumes you've read the sections prior to that.
::: Jmela09, I think you go too far the other way, seeming to say that we have no way of knowing. Also, it overlooks the possibility that perhaps the "need to believe" is because God created us that way. Why, otherwise, is there a need to believe?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:36, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::::This is very possible, however, how can we explain the origin of the "need to believe"? What scientific evidence do we have? It seems God is proven by the individual and not by science. Some people believe their whole life and others begin believing when they feel the "need to believe". What triggers this "need to believe"? I think it has to do with the way you view your life and experiences. The people that believe are the people that feel God has somehow touched their life or society. The idea of God is very personal and can only be explained by the individual. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
::::: I would think that everyone has a "need to believe", but some satisfy, at least partially, that need with other answers. It is true that many people believe in God for purely personal reasons, but it's false to say that personal feeling is the only basis for belief. God can be deduced logically, and quite a few people have come to believe in God not because of personal experience or feelings, but because of the overwhelming evidence. See also my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], down to the section about proving God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Economists and people invloved in the Medical field are some of the most intelligent people in our country and they are more likely to believe in God then people of other academic fields, also most professors believe in God-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It is not relelvant to some poeple. Personally I believe in the evolution theory and God at the same time. I think that there is already enough evidence to support the evolution theory. But I follow God's teachings on life, not where life came from. Please do not be offended but there is no evidence of God's existence. It is only a matter of faith. But for "scientific" topics like evolution I think I'd rather believe in science. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Disagree?]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2008-06-18T16:41:33Z

Faizaguo: /* NO */

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to at least two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who created this site:

*a perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopaedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", singles by obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these arguments as regards these two features and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopaedia because of its perceived liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one fact. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the globe, not just in America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English-language Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it is contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention and contributors outside of the United States. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside the United States. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are victim to the subjective viewpoint of the author, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However, I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia Main Page that a negative, or percieved negative element edited in by one user reflect on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article on Chris Benoit carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspicious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information on to one page, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act, as was implied by the news piece.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use on the site, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the perceived imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopaedia, I would like to make the following argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopaedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopaedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopaedia, or even a paper encyclopaedia set could ever hope to offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopaedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopaedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the adherence to the traditional image of an encyclopaedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, religious, political, historical and social information was included in concise articles because of realistic restraints about the size of the book (or set of books).

As methods of retrieving information have developed greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopaediae such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopaedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I just have to reply here, for I don't agree with the question itself. Conservapedia and Wikipedia are just two different wikis, each with its own perspective, policies and target audience(if that's the right word). They are just for different people with different opinions, so I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it. NPOV!!!NPOV!!! [[User talk:Faizaguo|NPOV!!!]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==YES==
The [[liberal]] bias produces an effect far more deleterious than one can account for merely by saying, "Oh, but people all over the world, not just the [[United States]], contribute to it." The dispute between liberals and [[conservative]]s is often a ''dispute of fact.'' When people cannot agree on the facts, debate is impossible. And if, for example, the [[United Nations]] were to pass a resolution saying that two plus two shall be equal to five, or that the value of "pi" shall be an even 3--well, I fail to see why the citizens of the United States--or for that matter the subjects of the [[United Kingdom]] or the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]--need accede to or comply with such resolutions.

Now about the objection concerning frivolous entries: Arcane British royalty is not the primary objection, nor should anyone pretend that it is. When I, for example, say that Wikipedia has certain entries that ill befit an encyclopedia, I am ''not'' talking about articles on, say, Prince Michael of [[Kent]]. Unhappily, the sort of articles that I ''am'' talking about, are on subjects that are not fit for discussion in polite, mixed company and especially not on a site accessible to minor children. In fact--and I am prepared to swear to this in a court of law, if necessary--some of the articles in Wikipedia on these "blue subjects" are directly copied from another London-based wiki devoted ''entirely'' to the particular "blue subject" in question--and without attribution, either, though the articles do give an external link.

Under the circumstances, Conservapedia has a definite mission and has every good reason to be proud of that mission.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:What if the UN were to pass a resolution saying that 3 is even or that the Commonwealth has subjects? =)
:Sorry, I couldn't resist, but I am really struggling to understand what these examples are supposed to mean. Just because there is a remote possibility that the UN could make some stupid resolution that everyone would ignore, the citizens of each country should collectively ignore the rest of the world? I honestly have no idea what you mean. Anyway, these "impolite" articles you talk about. To arrive at one on Wikipedia, a user would need to type in an "impolite" word, just as they could on, say, Google, where they would probably find far more offensive material. Besides, I really can't think of a subject which is excluded from polite conversation for a good reason - it's mostly just culture-specific taboos that we were brought up with. For example, you may well have no problem talking to a complete stranger about a recent murder (which is widely accepted as being immoral), but would you want to bring up sex (which isn't)? I certainly wouldn't, though I realise it is completely irrational.
:As for the more frivolous or obscure articles which seem to be criticised here a lot, if the Wikimedia Foundation is happy to host them, I really can't see a possible problem. Nobody forces you to read these articles, and if you aren't interested in their subjects, you probably never will. And just because you aren't interested in, say, obscure species of beetle or individual episodes of TV programmes, doesn't mean no-one else should be - after all, someone was clearly interested enough to write the articles. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 17:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2008-06-18T16:40:08Z

Faizaguo: /* Why do we need debate topics? */

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

:so people can argue their points obviously-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:So you can flame them back?[[User talk:Faizaguo|Flame.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-06-18T16:39:36Z

Faizaguo: /* Yes */

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Generally speaking, "liberal" censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''
:The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam
:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Alll books should be banned that do not includes god
:You are very biased and are likely to offend people. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Offend.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2008-06-18T16:35:54Z

Faizaguo: /* British English */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak
:Freedom! Freedom! --[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Anti-intellectual names"? ==

What the heck? [[User:The Ostrich|The Ostrich]] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Do you attend school or go to your place of employment and insist on being called "The Ostrich"? No, because you would never be taken seriously.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**Online, pseudonymity is key for many people. What can they do otherwise for a unique identifier? Are you suggesting that a substantial privacy risk should be taken? I don't mind using my name, people think I'm joking, but what should people seeking a unique, memorable, and private identity name themselves online? your two-letter combination can't serve the Internet's millions - we'd run out after 262. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 00:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: Would you give someone your resume if it was printed in unreadable non-standard font that also substituted letters from non-english alphabets for the the standard ones? How is that different, .....--? Oh, you think it's cute so IT IS different. [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 07:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you think no one takes R.USirius (our however it is spelled) seriously? [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 08:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Drive to improve this page - your help is desired ==

I am reviewing this section both for edits, clarification, and for possible new entries to the list. Improvements, suggestions, or constructive criticism are welcome. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, ==

#Number 1 is either obviously wrong or critically misleading: the GDFL is specifically designed to allow users to retain ownership of their contributions while allowing free redistribution. You do not lose any rights whatsoever to what you contribute when you contribute under a GDFL license, since you still own the original version. Your only restriction is once another person edits an article - then, ''the article'' is no longer yours, but your original content still belongs to you. Further, it allows you to prevent mirrors from claiming that they are the creators of your content - you can file a DMCA takedown notice based on your copyright, whereas public domain content is, well, public domain.
#While I remain puzzled as to what is meant by "entries and discussions which are anti-intellectual in nature" (I see no "nerds, you suck" pages on Wikipedia, and the assertion itself seems unfounded (examples, please?)), Wikipedia has merely chosen to separate its lectures, guides, et cetera into separate projects (Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks) to concentrate on a core goal of creating an encyclopedia. Number 2 thus seems grossly misleading - it is not that Wikipedia is lacking, it is that Conservapedia's content is jumbled together (which may or may not be a good thing :) ).
#While Jimbo Wales did co-found Wikia, it is noted repeatedly as being otherwise unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Further, what search engine is associated with Wikipedia?!? Number 3 seems almost ridiculously unhinged.
#
#Gossip isn't exactly allowed on Wikipedia either. I hear they have a really strict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons policy about unreferenced material on living people]. Perhaps number 5 could use a fact-checking tune-up?
#
#
#Neutral to the facts? Conservapedia freely admits being highly pro-Christian, pro-Conservative, and pro-US. The last time I heard that called neutral... there wasn't a last time. Further, what's wrong with using the word "militant"? They mean virtually the same thing, and "militant" isn't politically charged, as "terrorist" is. Number 8 seems to be missing the point: what's wrong with trying to be neutral? Besides, organizations widely recognized as being terrorist in nature are usually labelled as such regardless.
#It's a wiki: anyone can change anything. If your content is supported by consensus, backed up by references, and bolstered by not presenting a lopsided view of the situation in question, it's unlikely that any user, even a sysop, could get away with censoring content. just as I assume is the case on Conservapedia. Got a case in point? I'd like to hear about it. Number 9. Turn me on, dead man.
#Excluding original research makes any reference more reliable. While Conservapedia may think that this "promotes a more intellectual atmosphere", any trained scientist will know that a single experiment, original research, is in and of itself unreliable. Until results are confirmed by multiple parties, which is unlikely to happen, the information obtained should not be trusted. Number 10 marks double digits of shame.
#Do you have a case in point? I recall seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Wikipedia's talk page guidelines], and it seems to me that users have a pretty wide latitude on their own user pages, as long as they aren't disrupting everyone else (in which case, as a misbehaving child might, it is obvious for them to lose some privileges).
#
#Perhaps Wikipedia has exacting rules, but it has been my experience that users are blocked because they make an edit which annoys a sysop on Conservapedia, for example [[User:NeutralParty]] who was blocked for asking about a series of indefinite IP range blocks. Wikipedia's rules would seem preferable to the apparant mob here. I was once blocked for an inappropriate username, with the summary "choose a different username" while having my IP blocked from creating accounts. If I am blocked for posting this, you merely prove my point - Conservapedia needs better blocking rules. Oh well.
#But you have no system for recognizing which people are experts, so your policy is just as bad - you simply treat all new users as... new users - which doesn't seem to be any different from Wikipedia. Unless, again, you can think of a case in point?
#Case in point? Someone being blocked for blog posts obviously was causing a real problem to be blocked. Your statement lacks both context and clarity for the instance.
#And what is your alternative to pseudonymity? Users who have inappropriate usernames are immediately and indefinitely blocked with invitation to choose a better name immediately. Further, I fail to see how usernames are inherently "anti-intellectual" - it's the contributions that matter, not the name.

::I have a bit of a problem with these "differences", and I have outlined my problems with them above. I don't mean to be an annoyance, but were someone to point out the holes in these differences, it might look like you were arbitrarily smearing Wikipedia. Which you aren't, right? I'd like to see some improvement here. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:53, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I read as far as your implication that Wikipedia does not have gossip. Surely you're joking. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. Or perhaps you don't think the National Enquirer has gossip either????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face. Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does. This is not vandalism. Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication??? To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia. I'll let you find the gossip. There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism. Conservapedia has a rule against gossip. Wikipedia does not. More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters. Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project. It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine. It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this. Perhaps you're one of them. How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are still making the same mistake as these guys from the press who have no idea what they are talking about. As one of the three admins on Wikia Search, if something like that was going on I think I would know about it. As for working for Microsoft, I object, I do not have one single piece of Microsoft software on my computer, and I have been using Linux for years. :D [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I'm glad you fixed your spelling of "ridiculous". Now perhaps you can tell us how many millions the for-profit Wikia search engine has raised from investors, which Wikipedia admins control and benefit from that for-profit endeavor, and how Wikipedia is and will be being manipulated to give it an advantage. You tell us the details if you know so much. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::O my! Someone has been reading too much CNN. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Aschafly, Wikipedia ''does'' have rules against gossip. Perhaps one of the sentences from one of the core policies (Verifiability) will make this clear: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, you attempt to discount my argument as absurd by calling me a liberal. This would only be an effective retort were I a liberal. I'm afraid that I only skimmed through the article on Bertrand Russell, but I don't see the gossip right away. Could you point me to a specific section or sections? Or has any gossip been appropriately removed? Further, I'm afraid it is not obvious that Wikipedia's "gossip" is the primary attraction to visitors. Also, would you mind reading some of the other complaints? Specifically, number 1 is, IMHO, the worst problem of the lot.
:And regarding Wikipedia admins, they aren't paid. The only connections that Wikia has to Wikipedia are Jimbo Wales and the occasional donation from Wikia, which help keep Wikipedia running - if Wikipedia itself were for-profit, it might have better servers rather than the lag-prone arrays currently responding to the flood of traffic. Further, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of Wikipedia end-users are not even aware of the Wikia Search page, or of any but the most popular Wikia-based sites. Even further than that, I mean no offense, but your last comment sounds somewhat like something from your Enquirer. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 12:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: INTregued, you're clueless. Look up gossip in the dictionary and read a copy of the National Enquirer so that you can learn what "gossip" is. Then reread Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia and see the gossip. Read [[Bias in Wikipedia]] for other examples. Wikipedia is filled with gossip, perhaps even more than the National Enquirer is. I'm not going to spend my afternoon teaching you what everyone else knows: the meaning of the term "gossip". I'm not going to respond to you further about this until you admit the obvious, and admit that Wikipedia does not prohibit or even discourage gossip. It welcomes it.

: Your second point also misses the obvious, and I'm not going to dwell on that with you either. Wikipedia generates traffic on the backs of volunteers, and a privileged few have raised millions in a for-profit venture to exploit that traffic. In the terminology of another silly Wikipedia entry, duh.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: In the various talk pages about atheism there is a question about who the burden of proof is upon for making a claim. In this case, I believe the burden is upon you. You have stated that there is gossip in the Bertrand Russell page on Wikipedia and yet you leave the evidence as left up to the reader who doesn't necessarily agree with you? Could you please point to specific items to show to others where that gossip is to prove your point? Making vague claims and then leaving it up to the other side to prove or disprove your claims will not win any points in a debate team. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Is the point of this site to be a better alternative to Wikipedia, or to bash it? When I joined I I was under the former impression, I am now leaning towards the latter. For example, if you go to the article about Wikipedia, you don't learn that it is a wiki, all you see is that it's an online encyclopedia, and section after section of mud-slinging. Would someone please explain this to me? [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 13:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

*Mschel, you are yet another common troll. You cannot even post here with openly and with integrity without using proxies to disguise yourself. More Liberal [[deceit]]. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Monitor blogs ==

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-06-18T16:33:15Z

Faizaguo: /* Yes */

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Generally speaking, "liberal" censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''
:The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam
:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Alll books should be banned that do not includes god
:You are very biased and are likely to offend people. [[Usertalk:Faizaguo|Offend.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2008-06-18T16:30:51Z

Faizaguo: /* Why do we need debate topics? */

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

:so people can argue their points obviously-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:So you can flame them back?[[Usertalk:Faizaguo|Flame.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2008-06-18T16:29:31Z

Faizaguo: /* Why do we need debate topics? */

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

:so people can argue their points obviously-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:So you can flame them back?[[Usertalk:Faizaguo:Flame.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2008-06-18T16:27:28Z

Faizaguo: /* NO */

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to at least two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who created this site:

*a perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopaedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", singles by obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these arguments as regards these two features and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopaedia because of its perceived liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one fact. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the globe, not just in America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English-language Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it is contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention and contributors outside of the United States. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside the United States. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are victim to the subjective viewpoint of the author, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However, I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia Main Page that a negative, or percieved negative element edited in by one user reflect on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article on Chris Benoit carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspicious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information on to one page, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act, as was implied by the news piece.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use on the site, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the perceived imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopaedia, I would like to make the following argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopaedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopaedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopaedia, or even a paper encyclopaedia set could ever hope to offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopaedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopaedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the adherence to the traditional image of an encyclopaedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, religious, political, historical and social information was included in concise articles because of realistic restraints about the size of the book (or set of books).

As methods of retrieving information have developed greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopaediae such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopaedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I just have to reply here, for I don't agree with the question itself. Conservapedia and Wikipedia are just two different wikis, each with its own perspective, policies and target audience(if that's the right word). They are just for different people with different opinions, so I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it. NPOV!!!NPOV!!! [[Usertalk:Faizaguo|NPOV!!!]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==YES==
The [[liberal]] bias produces an effect far more deleterious than one can account for merely by saying, "Oh, but people all over the world, not just the [[United States]], contribute to it." The dispute between liberals and [[conservative]]s is often a ''dispute of fact.'' When people cannot agree on the facts, debate is impossible. And if, for example, the [[United Nations]] were to pass a resolution saying that two plus two shall be equal to five, or that the value of "pi" shall be an even 3--well, I fail to see why the citizens of the United States--or for that matter the subjects of the [[United Kingdom]] or the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]--need accede to or comply with such resolutions.

Now about the objection concerning frivolous entries: Arcane British royalty is not the primary objection, nor should anyone pretend that it is. When I, for example, say that Wikipedia has certain entries that ill befit an encyclopedia, I am ''not'' talking about articles on, say, Prince Michael of [[Kent]]. Unhappily, the sort of articles that I ''am'' talking about, are on subjects that are not fit for discussion in polite, mixed company and especially not on a site accessible to minor children. In fact--and I am prepared to swear to this in a court of law, if necessary--some of the articles in Wikipedia on these "blue subjects" are directly copied from another London-based wiki devoted ''entirely'' to the particular "blue subject" in question--and without attribution, either, though the articles do give an external link.

Under the circumstances, Conservapedia has a definite mission and has every good reason to be proud of that mission.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:What if the UN were to pass a resolution saying that 3 is even or that the Commonwealth has subjects? =)
:Sorry, I couldn't resist, but I am really struggling to understand what these examples are supposed to mean. Just because there is a remote possibility that the UN could make some stupid resolution that everyone would ignore, the citizens of each country should collectively ignore the rest of the world? I honestly have no idea what you mean. Anyway, these "impolite" articles you talk about. To arrive at one on Wikipedia, a user would need to type in an "impolite" word, just as they could on, say, Google, where they would probably find far more offensive material. Besides, I really can't think of a subject which is excluded from polite conversation for a good reason - it's mostly just culture-specific taboos that we were brought up with. For example, you may well have no problem talking to a complete stranger about a recent murder (which is widely accepted as being immoral), but would you want to bring up sex (which isn't)? I certainly wouldn't, though I realise it is completely irrational.
:As for the more frivolous or obscure articles which seem to be criticised here a lot, if the Wikimedia Foundation is happy to host them, I really can't see a possible problem. Nobody forces you to read these articles, and if you aren't interested in their subjects, you probably never will. And just because you aren't interested in, say, obscure species of beetle or individual episodes of TV programmes, doesn't mean no-one else should be - after all, someone was clearly interested enough to write the articles. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 17:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-06-18T16:21:41Z

Faizaguo:

{{debate}}

With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions.
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied.
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.
::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work.
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''" and "''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''": True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''. This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the "scientists as an authority" argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.
::::: "''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''": No, "deep time" was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.
::::: "''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''": Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.
::::: "''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''": Yes. Faith is trust ''based on evidence''. If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.
::::: "''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''": Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method. To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator. Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''. The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:Most of that post is simply assertion. When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly. Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''. The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid. All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it. Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information! That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::I have to disagree here - genetic variation rarely introduces or destroys genetic information - it, more accurately, mangles it. Usually you get two results - missense and nonsense. Missense is something that reads incorrectly - usually something small, like a substitution of one base pair for another. It can have no effect, or be harmful or beneficial. Then there's nonsense. Nonsense is when the resulting genetic code is totally, completely unreadable. This usually occurs when you get a frameshift mutation - since genes are read in codons of 3s, adding one or two base pairs or deleting one or two will 'shift' every single base pair down the chain. This results in more dire genetic disorders. Now, how this relates to evolution: missense is actually a good thing: it can introduce new alleles (variations of a gene - usually just dominant/recessive) into a population, add new genetic strings, duplicate a chromosome, etc. So long as it doesn't result in that organism being infertile or dying, it will cause a change that can be compounded in its successors. Lots of evolutionary trends can be explained by gross mutations that, by a quirk of luck, did not end up killing the organism. The best example I can think of is the duplication of the hox gene (a homeobox gene; it determines how body segments develop) in invertebrates. As you go from invertebrate to vertebrate, you find more and more copies of the hox gene; invertebrates have one, simple vertebrates have two, vertebrates with seperate, complex jaws have three. These large mutations, when they don't kill the mutant, can be passed on and slowly, gradually edited via trial and error until you have an astonishingly interesting result. The best example of genetic information being "introduced" and resulting in a beneficial (to the organism) evolution are antibacterial resistant disease strains; bacteria reproduce at an incredibly fast rate, and as such a bacterial population has quite a few different mutations and alleles in its gene pool at any given time. As such, when you expose the population to waves of antibiotics, the tiny fraction of bacteria that survive by a combination of luck and good genetics pass these genetic changes onto their offspring. Not only this, but bacteria can also pass the genetic changes on to other, non-related bacteria by conjugation and plasmid exchange. Anyways...Yeah. Kinda run out of steam, but there's a shortish explanation of the mechanisms I believe power evolution.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion. And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::: "''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''": In order to "support evolution", the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''. Creation also predicts a "rich history of different species of animal[s]", so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.
::::: "''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''": [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.
::::: "''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''": They show no such thing. Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they "show" that that's what actually happened. That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.
::::: "''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''": Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave. And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.
::::: "''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''": Huh? What's that?
::::: "''...or 'flood extinctions...''": How are there "too many"?
::::: "''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''": See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.
::::: "''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''": They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Actually, I'd say fossils pretty well _DIS_Prove the [http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm Whole Silly Flood Story]. If all those animals really had died at once, you'd expect they'd be a lot more mixed-up, with whales and stonefish next to trilobites and Devonian fishes, instead of being neatly arranged in strata, with the animals that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy tells us are the oldest at the bottom, and more recently-evolved ones higher up. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: So you know enough about flood geology to know the processes involved well enough to make predictions about how things would be buried? The ones at the bottom are generally the ones that lived on the bottom of the seas and would have been buried first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually, I'd expect the first ones to be buried would be LAND ANIMALS, who '''can't swim'''. But instead we find invertebrate water-dwelling animals at the bottom-most layers, with the vertebrate fish appearing further up, then the amphibians, then the reptiles, THEN mammals. A result that looks to me like it makes more sense from an evolution-based model than a Genesis-based one. Go read the article I pointed to, it goes into a LOT more detail than I can. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Massive undersea landslides have been noted travelling at high speeds that quickly bury anything in their paths, whether they can swim or not. Land animals could initially escape to higher ground before being buried, particularly the larger, more mobile animals, whilst amphibians and reptiles, which can't move as fast, would be buried sooner.
::::::::: As far as your linked article is concerned, it has so many misrepresentations in the first two paragraphs that I didn't bother reading any further.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Wait, wait. These undersea landslides move so fast that nothing can escape them.... escept the things that moved to higher ground. Which is why we find Devonian-era giant dragonflies in the same strata as modern birds.... oh, wait. No we don't.
::::::::::I am totally unsurprised you didn't read it. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

One can believe in evolution and God. If we look at the theory of evolution, it is widely believed that life started from extremely simple almost non-living organisms in the thermal vents of the oceans. Who created these thermal vents? Who created the earth? Who created the sun? who created the solar system? Who created anything and everything in our universe? There has to be something. Evolution could just be a part of the way things happen. The same way an egg hatches or ice melts. It's all science. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
: See [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Are evolution and the idea of God contradictory?|here]] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Okay. Now, how does one go about ''scientifically'' testing for God? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::It is not possible to test for God. The only thing people have is what they read and are taught. For all we know, God may have been produced to explain the unexplainable, to take away some of the natural curiousity that comes with human nature. People have the need to believe that there is something more to life than just what we sense. We need a reason for what we do in this life and most humans need the comfort of knowing that there is a place for them when they die. Whether you believe or not, God is the only thing we have to explain the creation of our surroundings. Science is what we have to explain the ways of our surroundings. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}

::: I missed Gulik5' question. My answer would be contained in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], the section about "Proving God", although that assumes you've read the sections prior to that.
::: Jmela09, I think you go too far the other way, seeming to say that we have no way of knowing. Also, it overlooks the possibility that perhaps the "need to believe" is because God created us that way. Why, otherwise, is there a need to believe?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:36, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::::This is very possible, however, how can we explain the origin of the "need to believe"? What scientific evidence do we have? It seems God is proven by the individual and not by science. Some people believe their whole life and others begin believing when they feel the "need to believe". What triggers this "need to believe"? I think it has to do with the way you view your life and experiences. The people that believe are the people that feel God has somehow touched their life or society. The idea of God is very personal and can only be explained by the individual. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
::::: I would think that everyone has a "need to believe", but some satisfy, at least partially, that need with other answers. It is true that many people believe in God for purely personal reasons, but it's false to say that personal feeling is the only basis for belief. God can be deduced logically, and quite a few people have come to believe in God not because of personal experience or feelings, but because of the overwhelming evidence. See also my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], down to the section about proving God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Economists and people invloved in the Medical field are some of the most intelligent people in our country and they are more likely to believe in God then people of other academic fields, also most professors believe in God-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It is not relelvant to some poeple. Personally I believe in the evolution theory and God at the same time. I think that there is already enough evidence to support the evolution theory. But I follow God's teachings on life, not where life came from. Please do not be offended but there is no evidence of God's existence. It is only a matter of faith. But for "scientific" topics like evolution I think I'd rather believe in science. [[Usertalk:Faizaguo|Disagree?]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-06-18T16:05:36Z

Faizaguo:

{{debate}}
What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[Usertalk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-06-17T21:04:06Z

Faizaguo:

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".

{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-06-17T21:00:41Z

Faizaguo: /* Administrator names? Huh? */