Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

John Lennon

2008-08-22T23:30:30Z

McTavidge:

'''John Lennon''', born '''John Winston Lennon''' (1940-1980), was a member of the [[Beatles]].

Though none of the [[Beatles]] were as successful on their own as they were as a group, John Lennon was considered by many to be have the most raw talent. He struggled with drug addiction, however, and several of his songs related to his habit, such as "Cold Turkey."

Lennon was the most outspoken among the [[Beatles]] on political issues, advocating pacifism during the [[Vietnam War]]. At one point the [[United States]] government investigated him.

After a self-imposed break from music to focus on his family and raising his young son Sean, Lennon produced a new album with his wife [[Yoko Ono]] in 1980, entitled ''Double Fantasy''. Tragically, less than a month after its release Lennon was shot dead outside his apartment building by a crazed fan named Mark David Chapman, on December 8, 1980. Fans worldwide went into a profound mourning.

Lennon's most famous individual work is "[[Imagine]]", a song that beseeches us to imagine a world not dominated by greed, religion, war, and hatred, but one governed by love, where all people are "living life in peace." At the end of the song Lennon encourages the listener to join him in dreaming of this world, implying that there is hope for humanity to rise above its weaknesses, anger, and hate.

He remains a hero in [[Britain]], where he was ranked in the top 10 of the 2002 "100 Greatest Britons" poll sponsored by the BBC.

Proving that Lennon is still as relevant and important as he ever was, in June of 2007, ''Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur'' was released. The album, whose proceeds go to [[Amnesty International]]'s campaign on behalf of Sudan's war-torn province of Darfur, features artists of yesterday and today, such as U2, REM, Green Day, and Corinne Bailey Raye covering Lennon's work. Given Lennon's activism and passion for peace, were he alive today, he would no doubt be the champion of the fight to stop the [[genocide]] in Sudan.

== Religious views ==
Lennon's famous quote in criticism of [[Christianity]] was in 1966:

* Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. '''We're more popular than Jesus now'''; I don't know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.

(Emphasis added)

After Christians worldwide criticized his attitude, misquoting him as saying "We are greater than Jesus," Lennon held a press conference on August 11, 1966, in Chicago at which he elaborated:

* I suppose if I had said television was more popular than Jesus, I would have gotten away with it. I'm sorry I opened my mouth. I'm not anti-God, anti-Christ, or anti-religion. I wasn't knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact and it's true more for England than here. I'm not saying that we're better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lennon, John}}

[[Category:Musicians]]
[[Category:Beatles]]

The Beatles

2008-08-22T23:27:33Z

McTavidge:

[[Image:Beatles,0.jpg|right|thumb|The Beatles]]
'''The Beatles''' were an [[England|English]] rock band from [[Liverpool]], UK. They were arguably one of the most influential rock bands of the 20th century, selling over a billion records.{{fact}} The Beatles played and recorded many genres of [[rock and roll]], from Tin Pan Alley to [[Psychedelia|psychedelic rock]].

The four Beatles were [[John Lennon]] (1940-1980), [[George Harrison]] (1943-2001), [[Paul McCartney]] (1942- ), and [[Ringo Starr]] (1940- ). Most of the Beatles' songs were co-written by Lennon and McCartney. In the latter half of the 1960s the majority of their songs were written individually, but retained the "Lennon/McCartney" writing credit. George Harrison's songs became more prominent on the albums following ''Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band''.

Having evolved from the high school band known as The Quarrymen, around 1962 the Beatles began playing in Hamburg, Germany, and became very popular there. A year later, thanks to underground radio, they were the biggest band in their native land of the UK. In 1964, the Beatles made their historic trip to the United States to perform on ''The Ed Sullivan Show''. To date, this performance is one of the highest-rated television events in history.

The Lennon/McCartney ballads often displayed a personal [[vulnerability]] which was extraordinarily appealing to young teenage girls. For example, "Help" contrasts a man's younger macho attitude ("I never needed anybody's help in any way") with a more grown-up attitude ("I changed my mind, I'll open up the door. Help me if you can").

As the years passed, the Beatles' sound grew. From an old-fashioned rock and roll sound similar to the Beach Boys and Carl Perkins, the band put out a much more mature sound on ''Revolver''. They even experimented with folk on ''Rubber Soul''. In 1967, the Beatles' album ''[[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]]'' changed music as we know it forever. The psychedelic sound reflected what was going on in the world at that time and also displayed brilliant use of new technologies (such as stereo sound).

With the ([[The Beatles (album) |''The Beatles'']] (the "White Album"), the Beatles had evolved into hard rockers. The songs had become more personal, and the band was beginning to fall apart. Prior to Lennon hooking up with [[Yoko Ono]], the lads had agreed that only the four of them would be in the recording studio (no lady friends of any type).<ref> When John brought Yoko in to work on songs and insisted that she be treated as an equal, the others resisted the idea, and John and Yoko got the cold shoulder for the rest of the sessions. [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbeatlesbreakup.html]</ref> Also, creative differences were creating tension among the Fab Four.

Their next project, originally to be titled "Get Back" and intended to "get them back" to recording songs the way they had in the earlier years and also to become a filmed documentary, exposed all the personal chafing and difficulties they were having. The tapes were shelved since none of the band wanted to deal with them.

At this point, although the public did not know it, the band had virtually broken up. However, at McCartney's urging, they assembled in the studio one more time and gave their fans what was to be their swan song, the splendid ''Abbey Road''. The "Get Back" tapes and film were handed over to Phil Spector to do something with them, and he produced the album that was released as ''Let It Be'', in conjunction with the release of the film, which was more a documentary of a band breaking up than one writing and recording new music in their studio.

It wasn't long before the lawsuits to dissolve the partnership were flying, and the band members were releasing solo albums.<ref> Although Lennon had made a few solo projects before the breakup, and Harrison one, they did not receive widespread notice.</ref>

In 2006, Cirque du Soleil opened a Beatle-themed show in Las Vegas, the aptly titled ''Love''. The show has been an outstanding success, and so has the album put out of the same name, featuring new remixes of Beatles songs by Beatles producer George Martin and his son Giles. The album also features previously unreleased versions of Beatles classics such as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Strawberry Fields Forever".

The Beatles were inducted into the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]] in 1988. As solo artists, all but Ringo have been inducted (Lennon in 1994, McCartney in 1999 and Harrison in 2004).

In 2004 ''Rolling Stone'' magazine ranked the Beatles #1 on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.<ref>[http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939214/the_immortals_the_first_fifty]</ref>

The two surviving Beatles are Ringo Starr and Sir Paul McCartney, who both still continue their recording and performing careers.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.delta.ro/beatles/paudi.html Beatle songs and lyrics]

*[http://beatlesnumber9.com/biggerjesus.html Transcript of LES Lennon interview]

{{The Beatles}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Beatles, The}}
[[Category:Bands]]
[[Category:Beatles]]

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-04-11T05:42:29Z

McTavidge:

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 22=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-21T03:18:02Z

McTavidge:

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact
many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to Christianity) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular.

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-20T04:19:07Z

McTavidge:

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact
many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), then let's settle in and solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Talk:Dick Cheney

2007-03-20T04:04:06Z

McTavidge:

Can't we use his REAL first name, to avoid obscenity? --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you mean the article name: I think it goes by what he's best known as, just like [[Bill Clinton]] is not at [[William Jefferson Clinton]] (it had been moved there briefly, but then got moved back). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you serious? His first name is obscene? Get real.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Whenever this article gets unprotected, it should be put under [[:Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

And what's the deal with the protection? That's lame -- are the party leaders to remain untouched by the editing of the masses? Surely they can take it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

And speaking of the article, someone just edited and left it a mess -- look at the fifth section, unhelpfully entitled "S:" (after bouncing back and forth between "Accidents:" and "S:" a couple of times. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-20T03:58:13Z

McTavidge: /* It shouldn't */

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact
many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Talk:Dick Cheney

2007-03-20T03:47:36Z

McTavidge:

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-17T04:53:38Z

McTavidge:

Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

'''It shouldn't.''' Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact
many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

'''It should.''' Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Talk:Bill Clinton

2007-03-15T02:37:25Z

McTavidge:

:I am going to have to rewrite this article for obvious reasons.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Too even-handed?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article name ==

Ok, does this make sense to have as William Jefferson Clinton when he was known as Bill Clinton? I don't think that anyone seriously would move [[Julias Caesar]] to [[Gaius Julius Caesar]] or [[Plutarch]] to [[Mestrius Plutarchus]] and I don't see how these are substantially different. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:White House website says: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html William J. Clinton]
:Columbia Encyclopedia says: [http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/ClintonB.html Bill Clinton]
:Encarta says: [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Clinton_Bill.html Bill Clinton]
:Britannica says: [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003019/Bill-Clinton Bill Clinton]
:American Heritage Dictionary says: [http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/C0410250.html Clinton, William Jefferson]
:Clinton Library is: [http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/ William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum]
:Gale's Biography Research Center says:
::Bill Clinton
::(American president, 1946-)
::Also known as: William Jefferson Clinton, William J. Clinton, William Clinton, William Jefferson Blythe
:and includes
::"Bill Clinton," in American Decades 1990-1999. Tandy McConnell, ed. Detroit: Gale Group, Inc., 2001.
::"Bill Clinton," in Current Leaders of Nations. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Newsmakers. Cumulation issue. Gale Research, 1992. (A profile of the individual's personal life, career, and newsworthy achievements.)
::"William Jefferson Clinton", in Contemporary Authors Online.
::"Bill Clinton," in Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 6: World Leaders, 10th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

::I've moved the article to "Bill Clinton" and created redirects for all the other forms of the name.

:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-15T02:28:28Z

McTavidge:

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]], It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.

::If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.

:::::ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

== Bias ==

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:::Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - '''why''' would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now.
-Gasmonkey

:JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== WMD ==

''Only about one-third of 36 million pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared. [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html]'''

That statement and reference is more than 2 years out of date now. Unless there's a more recent reference it will have to be changed. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

''On-the-ground academic research in Iraq has determined that approximately 600,000 more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than would have otherwise died in that time frame if the war was not raging.[8]''

even being cited to the New York Times means nothing. Coulda Woulda Shoulda is not news, neither are psychic predictors of facts that never happened. I seriously think this kinda junk needs to be kept out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:LOL! Do you even understand how casualty studies are conducted, or how the math behind them functions? These aren't "psychic predictors of facts that never happened". There's massive amounts of mathematics and science behind these studies; you can't publish something like that in a peer-reviewed journal like the Lancet without meeting rigorous scientific requirements to ensure reliable results. The study itself is available in PDF format if you Google it, so yuou can read it and take a look at the math behind it for yourself. Perhaps that will help allay your confusion.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (PST)
:Here is a link to the study on the Lancet's website: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf If anybody has any questions about the methodology or mathematics involved, feel free to ask me and I will try to help you understand. I look forward to putting the Lancet study back into this article, because I see no serious reason to exclude it.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 19:18, 14 March 2007 (PST)
::(Edit conflict:I'll read the rest) Yes, I understand. For example, Saddam only killed 250,000 over thirty years; so using the mathematical model we would have to divide 250,000 human lives by 30 and then add back the average for three years (2003 - 2006). Makes perfect logical and scientific sense. I doesn't preclude the possibility that Saddam may have awoke one morning and decided to go on a pogrom and slaughter 650,000 people in the space of three years, thus upsetting the model. Nor does it consider that Saddam may have met an early demise and Uday of Qusay could have likewise gone on such a pogrom.

::Point here is, this is junk science, beginning with the conclusion the if not for the Bush- Cheney-Rusmfeld cabal, 650,000 Iraqi's would be alive, i.e. laying the responsibility for murderers and terrorists at the US Admins feet (and yes, all that garbage previously was in the intro to this article before I fixed it with facts).

::This is History 101, "If Rommel had 4 more divisions, we'd all be speaking German today". But Rommel didn't have 4 more divisions, and we're not speaking German today. It's the simple difference between historical facts, and speculation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticisms==

"The American left has been criticized for its objections to the execution of the war." What is the nature of the criticism? Was it criticized for criticizing the war tactics because criticizing the Administration is somehow unacceptable? [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

2007-03-15T02:13:31Z

McTavidge:

== Say What?! ==

"a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able to use Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully" Does this suggest that using WMDs on your own population is a peaceful use? Is it possible to have a peaceful use of a weapon of mass destruction? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe one could use bombs as bridge abutments? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I know Saddam used WMD on his own population. We're talking about stable states here, not Saddam's Iraq. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 03:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== One can argue ... anything ==
"One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges)."

And the point of making the aforementioned "argument" would be...? That since (arguably) WMDs are "in the Bible" they're OK by God?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I do think you're missing the point. Deterrence, from peaceful nations having WMDs, is the only reason we have the globalized society we do now. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, if that's the point, maybe it could be spelled out clearly (instead of merely hinted at) -- and supported by a citation. Sounds like a lot to rest on just one factor.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

2007-03-14T10:56:05Z

McTavidge:

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-14T10:49:45Z

McTavidge: /* Weapons of Mass Destruction */

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world, started when [[United States|U.S.]] president [[George W Bush]] launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], finding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] and liberating the Iraqi people. Currently the outcome of the war is unknown, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The Bush administration champions the war as part of the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]], although the topic is up for debate. The Administration has been widely criticized for numerous strategic blunders in the execution of the war, including the failure to have a post-invasion plan.

===Iraqi Resistance===

Iraqi resistance to the occupation began almost immediately after the invasion in March 2003, and has steadily increased since then. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]. The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province. A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm]. Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops".[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm]

===Iraqi Casualties===

On-the-ground academic research in Iraq has determined that approximately 600,000 more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than would have otherwise died in that time frame if the war was not raging[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]. Pro-occupation proponents dispute the numbers, but few statisticians do, as the methodology is largely sound.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html]

===Weapons of Mass Destruction===

The weapons of mass destruction the Administration repeatedly asserted were present in the period before the war still have not been found. Apologists for the Bush Administration insist they were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]]. Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the [[First Gulf War]], and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-14T10:46:17Z

McTavidge:

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-14T03:36:04Z

McTavidge:

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' "

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-14T03:28:48Z

McTavidge:

Talk:Dick Cheney

2007-03-14T03:16:32Z

McTavidge: