Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Helen Clark

2007-09-08T12:15:49Z

Plqgnmv: interested in knowing sources

==FHM model==

i was just wondering as to where the creator of this page found the information that helen clark once modeled for fhm. it is a rather interesting fact considering to my understanding last year in a survey of its readers she was rated new zealands least kissable woman. Also it seems a little un-helen like to model for a mens magazine considering her views regarding womans' rights. [[user:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-09-01T22:35:33Z

Plqgnmv: /* bias. */

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --[[User:9820|9820]] 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There is an error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Founding" section. "quit" instead of "quite"--[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:34, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*That is in fact more [[deceit]]. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== bias. ==

this article reads like fox news, please consider moving to conserva-

owait, its already here.

facts < politics

flaming appreciated, its a bit cold here. {{unsigned|Headsup}}

EXCUSE ME!!! is this an article or an advertisment for fox news channel????? how about some facts. eg, when did it start broadcasting, where does it broadcast besides the united states, who are its directors, what are its main topics and programmes???

Talk:New Zealand

2007-09-01T22:26:23Z

Plqgnmv: /* nz politics*/

''NOTE: Dates after posts shown ''without'' "(EDT)" were added later according to when they were posted in Australian time.''
----
Very well written. The only part I would possibly dispute is your statement that the Maori Party are in opposition to the government. While this would certainly be true on issues such as the seabed and foreshore legislation, it is a bit of a stretch to say they are in opposition. They have voted with the government on sevveral issues, and it is important to bear in mind that the Maori electorate traditionally votes on a slightly more left of centre basis. Despite this minor detail, I thought it was a well written and well balanced article. - Tom.

You know what i find funny? the fact that conservapedia claims to be better than Wikipedia and yet it used wikipedia as a source, check the external links for this article, one is for wikitravel, a part of wikipedia, how are you supposed to be better than someone else if you get your info from them?. - John.

Entirely True, i applaud the work of this historian {{unsigned|Aheheh}} 19th March 2007.

== This is ridiculous ==
I cannot be bothered to change it, but just to let you know, the japanese did not colonise New Zealand and at least a whole paragraph of this article is a complete and utter lie, I hope someone will deal with it shortly. {{unsigned|Pallawish}} 18th March 2007.

== Doesnt make sense ==

Is their any support at all that Japan and Russia came to New Zealand before america was found? and that they founded a city called "Vodka City" and that australia, in 1796 invaded these two "capitals" and defeated a nation that has been established for many years? makes no sense nor is their any factual backing. {{unsigned|Thommie}} 20th March 2007.

-I think it depends on who you refer to as the Australians, Japanese and Russians at that time. These states were very different before the late modern period. The history of the area isn't as well documented as say the American colonial period. {{unsigned|Jason2010}} 20th March 2007.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wikipedia, you do need to take information from it with a pinch of salt however and it definitely should not be used for serious research purposes. I hope i did my country justice by writing this article -gilltm (30th March, 2007).

thanks for correcting me or for any constructive editing {{unsigned|Gilltm}} 30th March 2007.

== Unemployment statistics wrong ==

The figure of 8.3% unemployment is very out of date. The Labour (centre-left) led government elected in 1999 has reduced the unemployment to something more like 3% and New Zealand has among the lowest unemployment rates in the world. {{unsigned|Plqgnmv}} 21st April 2007.

: Can you provide a citation for your number?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: The unemployment rate data from the last quarter of 2006 is 3.7%. The information is from the statistics New Zealand website. http://www.stats.govt.nz/top-20-stats.htm [[User:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]] 6:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::I find it hard to believe that a liberal governement like this one would have such low unemployment - must be a mistake. Delete maybe? [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 08:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html Here]]. No ideological deletes, especially when so ill-informed. 3.8% in 2006 as a whole. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

: That's very different from the number reported in the content page. Could that be due to how unemployment is measured in New Zealand? E.g., are many people simply dropped off the rolls after 6 months, even though they continue to be unemployed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::The latest OECD standardised unemployment rate (SUR) for NZ is 3.7%[http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=View]. The SUR counts those of working age who are without work, available for work and actively seeking work and is a sound basis for comparing unemployment rates in different countries.[http://stats.oecd.org/mei/default.asp?lang=e&subject=10].--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 12:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:: People are most certainly not dropped off the rolls after 6 months. They recieve the unemployment benefit and are supported in the job finding process. Also I don't care if you find it hard to believe the stats are true and have a source, therfore it would be wrong to delete them. The liberal Labour government does have this unemployment rate that has been decreasing since the Labour led government came to power. It probably annoys you to have a very sucessful example of a liberal government on your website especialy one led by a women. [[user|plqgnmv]] (23rd May 2007)

::: You cannot really use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' outside of the United States, the Democrats and Republicans don't really have any parallels in NZ. I mean sure the Labour party concerns itself with social welfare etc, but they're not 'liberal' in the American sense. The National party is a lot more conservative, but they're hardly influenced by the Christian right like the Republican party. I'm pentecostal myself and I think that politics is beneath religion. Why dirty yourselves with politics? - [[user|gilltm]] (18th June 2007)

:::yes i agree that you cannot use 'liberal' and 'conservative' outside the u.s. in the same context, new zealand politics is not so black and white as through our fairer proportional representation system we have 8 different parties and 2 independants with various different values and beliefs. in new zealand someone would also never say i am labour or i am national like in the u.s. where people almost identify with their party and seem to belong to it, eg: "im republican." in new zealand people will say 'i vote labour' but never suggest that they belong to it. As an athiest i also believe religion and politics should stay away from each other. [[user:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]]

== Type of Government ==

The government was listed as a constitutional monarchy, this is not the case. Elizabeth II is the head of state, however NZ's actual government type is a Parliamentary Democracy with a single house of parliament consisting of 120 MP's. [[user|gilltm]] (18th June 2007)
:I'm prepared to stand corrected on this, but I will point out that the article already said that it was a constitutional monarchy, a change that ''you'' made to the article! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=New_Zealand&diff=next&oldid=27850]

:The article also says that Liz is the queen of New Zealand, again a change that you put in the article.

:The infobox does not at present allow for "head of state", so making that change effectively hid the reference. The template is quite new, and certainly needs adding to, but I'm unsure what to add in that regard. If I add a "Head of state" row, and Liz goes in there, where does the Governer General go? Should there be a "Head of state" row and an "Acting head of state" row, or what? Your comments are welcome.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps Governor General should just be listed under "Governor General"? ([[User:Gilltm|Gilltm]] 00:09, 18 June 2007 (EDT))
:::Yes, that would seem an obvious solution. So would we not have a "Head of state" category? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:11, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

::to my understanding Queen liz is the head of state of new zealand and the govoner general is the representitive of the queen who acts on her behalf in new zealand
[[user:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]]

Talk:New Zealand

2007-09-01T22:12:59Z

Plqgnmv: /* Type of Government */

''NOTE: Dates after posts shown ''without'' "(EDT)" were added later according to when they were posted in Australian time.''
----
Very well written. The only part I would possibly dispute is your statement that the Maori Party are in opposition to the government. While this would certainly be true on issues such as the seabed and foreshore legislation, it is a bit of a stretch to say they are in opposition. They have voted with the government on sevveral issues, and it is important to bear in mind that the Maori electorate traditionally votes on a slightly more left of centre basis. Despite this minor detail, I thought it was a well written and well balanced article. - Tom.

You know what i find funny? the fact that conservapedia claims to be better than Wikipedia and yet it used wikipedia as a source, check the external links for this article, one is for wikitravel, a part of wikipedia, how are you supposed to be better than someone else if you get your info from them?. - John.

Entirely True, i applaud the work of this historian {{unsigned|Aheheh}} 19th March 2007.

== This is ridiculous ==
I cannot be bothered to change it, but just to let you know, the japanese did not colonise New Zealand and at least a whole paragraph of this article is a complete and utter lie, I hope someone will deal with it shortly. {{unsigned|Pallawish}} 18th March 2007.

== Doesnt make sense ==

Is their any support at all that Japan and Russia came to New Zealand before america was found? and that they founded a city called "Vodka City" and that australia, in 1796 invaded these two "capitals" and defeated a nation that has been established for many years? makes no sense nor is their any factual backing. {{unsigned|Thommie}} 20th March 2007.

-I think it depends on who you refer to as the Australians, Japanese and Russians at that time. These states were very different before the late modern period. The history of the area isn't as well documented as say the American colonial period. {{unsigned|Jason2010}} 20th March 2007.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wikipedia, you do need to take information from it with a pinch of salt however and it definitely should not be used for serious research purposes. I hope i did my country justice by writing this article -gilltm (30th March, 2007).

thanks for correcting me or for any constructive editing {{unsigned|Gilltm}} 30th March 2007.

== Unemployment statistics wrong ==

The figure of 8.3% unemployment is very out of date. The Labour (centre-left) led government elected in 1999 has reduced the unemployment to something more like 3% and New Zealand has among the lowest unemployment rates in the world. {{unsigned|Plqgnmv}} 21st April 2007.

: Can you provide a citation for your number?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: The unemployment rate data from the last quarter of 2006 is 3.7%. The information is from the statistics New Zealand website. http://www.stats.govt.nz/top-20-stats.htm [[User:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]] 6:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::I find it hard to believe that a liberal governement like this one would have such low unemployment - must be a mistake. Delete maybe? [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 08:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html Here]]. No ideological deletes, especially when so ill-informed. 3.8% in 2006 as a whole. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

: That's very different from the number reported in the content page. Could that be due to how unemployment is measured in New Zealand? E.g., are many people simply dropped off the rolls after 6 months, even though they continue to be unemployed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::The latest OECD standardised unemployment rate (SUR) for NZ is 3.7%[http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=View]. The SUR counts those of working age who are without work, available for work and actively seeking work and is a sound basis for comparing unemployment rates in different countries.[http://stats.oecd.org/mei/default.asp?lang=e&subject=10].--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 12:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:: People are most certainly not dropped off the rolls after 6 months. They recieve the unemployment benefit and are supported in the job finding process. Also I don't care if you find it hard to believe the stats are true and have a source, therfore it would be wrong to delete them. The liberal Labour government does have this unemployment rate that has been decreasing since the Labour led government came to power. It probably annoys you to have a very sucessful example of a liberal government on your website especialy one led by a women. [[user|plqgnmv]] (23rd May 2007)

::: You cannot really use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' outside of the United States, the Democrats and Republicans don't really have any parallels in NZ. I mean sure the Labour party concerns itself with social welfare etc, but they're not 'liberal' in the American sense. The National party is a lot more conservative, but they're hardly influenced by the Christian right like the Republican party. I'm pentecostal myself and I think that politics is beneath religion. Why dirty yourselves with politics? - [[user|gilltm]] (18th June 2007)

== Type of Government ==

The government was listed as a constitutional monarchy, this is not the case. Elizabeth II is the head of state, however NZ's actual government type is a Parliamentary Democracy with a single house of parliament consisting of 120 MP's. [[user|gilltm]] (18th June 2007)
:I'm prepared to stand corrected on this, but I will point out that the article already said that it was a constitutional monarchy, a change that ''you'' made to the article! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=New_Zealand&diff=next&oldid=27850]

:The article also says that Liz is the queen of New Zealand, again a change that you put in the article.

:The infobox does not at present allow for "head of state", so making that change effectively hid the reference. The template is quite new, and certainly needs adding to, but I'm unsure what to add in that regard. If I add a "Head of state" row, and Liz goes in there, where does the Governer General go? Should there be a "Head of state" row and an "Acting head of state" row, or what? Your comments are welcome.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps Governor General should just be listed under "Governor General"? ([[User:Gilltm|Gilltm]] 00:09, 18 June 2007 (EDT))
:::Yes, that would seem an obvious solution. So would we not have a "Head of state" category? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:11, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

::to my understanding Queen liz is the head of state of new zealand and the govoner general is the representitive of the queen who acts on her behalf in new zealand
[[user:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]]

Talk:New Zealand

2007-05-23T04:45:37Z

Plqgnmv:

Very well written. The only part I would possibly dispute is your statement that the Maori Party are in opposition to the government. While this would certainly be true on issues such as the seabed and foreshore legislation, it is a bit of a stretch to say they are in opposition. They have voted with the government on sevveral issues, and it is important to bear in mind that the Maori electorate traditionally votes on a slightly more left of centre basis. Despite this minor detail, I thought it was a well written and well balanced article. - Tom.

You know what i find funny? the fact that conservapedia claims to be better than Wikipedia and yet it used wikipedia as a source, check the external links for this article, one is for wikitravel, a part of wikipedia, how are you supposed to be better than someone else if you get your info from them?. - John.

Entirely True, i applaud the work of this historian

== Doesnt make sense ==

Is their any support at all that Japan and Russia came to New Zealand before america was found? and that they founded a city called "Vodka City" and that australia, in 1796 invaded these two "capitals" and defeated a nation that has been established for many years? makes no sense nor is their any factual backing.

-I think it depends on who you refer to as the Australians, Japanese and Russians at that time. These states were very different before the late modern period. The history of the area isn't as well documented as say the American colonial period.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wikipedia, you do need to take information from it with a pinch of salt however and it definitely should not be used for serious research purposes. I hope i did my country justice by writing this article -gilltm

thanks for correcting me or for any constructive editing

== Unemployment statistics wrong ==

The figure of 8.3% unemployment is very out of date. The Labour (centre-left) led government elected in 1999 has reduced the unemployment to something more like 3% and New Zealand has among the lowest unemployment rates in the world.

: Can you provide a citation for your number?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: The unemployment rate data from the last quarter of 2006 is 3.7%. The information is from the statistics New Zealand website. http://www.stats.govt.nz/top-20-stats.htm [[User:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]] 6:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::I find it hard to believe that a liberal governement like this one would have such low unemployment - must be a mistake. Delete maybe? [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 08:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html Here]]. No ideological deletes, especially when so ill-informed. 3.8% in 2006 as a whole. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

: That's very different from the number reported in the content page. Could that be due to how unemployment is measured in New Zealand? E.g., are many people simply dropped off the rolls after 6 months, even though they continue to be unemployed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::The latest OECD standardised unemployment rate (SUR) for NZ is 3.7%[http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=View]. The SUR counts those of working age who are without work, available for work and actively seeking work and is a sound basis for comparing unemployment rates in different countries.[http://stats.oecd.org/mei/default.asp?lang=e&subject=10].--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 12:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:: People are most certainly not dropped off the rolls after 6 months. They recieve the unemployment benefit and are supported in the job finding process. Also I don't care if you find it hard to believe the stats are true and have a source, therfore it would be wrong to delete them. The liberal Labour government does have this unemployment rate that has been decreasing since the Labour led government came to power. It probably annoys you to have a very sucessful example of a liberal government on your website especialy one led by a women. [[user|plqgnmv]]

Talk:Censorship

2007-05-12T04:17:39Z

Plqgnmv:

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

Talk:Censorship

2007-05-12T04:17:16Z

Plqgnmv:

Talk:New Zealand

2007-04-24T06:08:29Z

Plqgnmv:

Talk:New Zealand

2007-04-24T06:06:54Z

Plqgnmv:

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-04-20T23:56:34Z

Plqgnmv:

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

== copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:New Zealand

2007-04-20T23:41:32Z

Plqgnmv: unemployment figures wrong