Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2006-12-17T20:51:18Z

Petera: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time. [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

==='''no...'''===
No

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2006-12-17T20:48:31Z

Petera:

Wikipedia is good:

Wikipedia is bad:

They censor non-christian stuff. They're really really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

You can write more reasons Wikipedia is a bad here.

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2006-12-17T08:29:21Z

Petera:

Wackypedia (Wikipedia) (or even Stupdipedia) prefers B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise and try to censor anything Christian? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly. Wikipedia is gay.

The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most users are American. The entry for Hapsburg (the ruling family) changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Often British spellings of words (e.g., "favour") are used even when the topic is American. That's silly. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not tell the reader when it occurred.

Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia. Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

Wikipedia has an entry describing Demopedia, which at last count had only 141 entries. Conservapedia has over ten times as many entries, yet Wikipedia insists on censoring the Conservapedia entry in Wikipedia.

For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century. And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude.

Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

'''Wikipedia is atheist! They allow everyone to edit, so people of other religions than christian can edit it.'''

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2006-12-17T08:28:59Z

Petera:

Wackypedia (Wikipedia) (or even Stupdipedia) prefers B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise and try to censor anything Christian? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly.

The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most users are American. The entry for Hapsburg (the ruling family) changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Often British spellings of words (e.g., "favour") are used even when the topic is American. That's silly. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not tell the reader when it occurred.

Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia. Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

Wikipedia has an entry describing Demopedia, which at last count had only 141 entries. Conservapedia has over ten times as many entries, yet Wikipedia insists on censoring the Conservapedia entry in Wikipedia.

For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century. And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude.

Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

'''Wikipedia is atheist! They allow everyone to edit, so people of other religions than christian can edit it.'''

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2006-12-17T08:28:29Z

Petera:

Wackypedia (Wikipedia) prefers B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise and try to censor anything Christian? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly.

The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most users are American. The entry for Hapsburg (the ruling family) changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Often British spellings of words (e.g., "favour") are used even when the topic is American. That's silly. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not tell the reader when it occurred.

Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia. Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

Wikipedia has an entry describing Demopedia, which at last count had only 141 entries. Conservapedia has over ten times as many entries, yet Wikipedia insists on censoring the Conservapedia entry in Wikipedia.

For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century. And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude.

Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

'''Wikipedia is atheist! They allow everyone to edit, so people of other religions than christian can edit it.'''

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2006-12-17T08:27:59Z

Petera:

Wackypedia (Wikipedia) prefers B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise and try to censor anything Christian? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly.

The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most users are American. The entry for Hapsburg (the ruling family) changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Often British spellings of words (e.g., "favour") are used even when the topic is American. That's silly. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not tell the reader when it occurred.

Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia. Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

Wikipedia has an entry describing Demopedia, which at last count had only 141 entries. Conservapedia has over ten times as many entries, yet Wikipedia insists on censoring the Conservapedia entry in Wikipedia.

For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century. And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude.

Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

Wikipedia is atheist! They allow everyone to edit, so people of other religions than christian can edit it.

Main Page

2006-12-17T08:21:04Z

Petera:

<big>'''Welcome to Conservapedia'''</big>
 

'''A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.'''



Wikipedia has become a less than ideal resource because of its anti-Christian and liberal bias. On Wikipedia, dates are given in anti-Christian CE instead of AD, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity is given no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, especially those of the Renaissance. Wikipedia's liberal editors even removed and blocked an entire page describing Wikipedia's bias. Wikipedia has gone the way of CBS News. It's long overdue to have FOX News-like competition. Because FOX rocks, and Wikipedia sucks!

Conservapedia eliminates Wikipedia's '''LIBERAL BIAS''' and is a true educational resource that is free for your benefit. You will much prefer using Conservapedia rather than Wikipedia if you want information free from liberal or anti-Christian bias.

Please improve this website as you use it. With your help, Conservapedia will continue to be an online encyclopedia you can trust. Much more trustworthy than Wikipedia.

<center>
===[[Index]]===
===[[Debate topics]]===
</center>

'''Before''' editing the Main Page, please see [[Talk:Main_Page|this]].

Main Page

2006-12-17T08:20:48Z

Petera:

<big>'''Welcome to Conservapedia'''</big>
 

'''A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.'''



Wikipedia has become a less than ideal resource because of its anti-Christian and liberal bias. On Wikipedia, dates are given in anti-Christian CE instead of AD, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity is given no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, especially those of the Renaissance. Wikipedia's liberal editors even removed and blocked an entire page describing Wikipedia's bias. Wikipedia has gone the way of CBS News. It's long overdue to have FOX News-like competition. Because FOX rocks, and Wikipedia sucks!

Conservapedia eliminates Wikipedia's '''LIBERAL BIAS''' and is a true educational resource that is free for your benefit. You will much prefer using Conservapedia rather than Wikipedia if you want information free from liberal or anti-Christian bias.

Please improve this website as you use it. With your help, Conservapedia will continue to be an online encyclopedia you can trust.

<center>
===[[Index]]===
===[[Debate topics]]===
</center>

'''Before''' editing the Main Page, please see [[Talk:Main_Page|this]].