Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

a couple thoughts

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--KenN 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Lawn is actually the perfect example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --<3 Sally 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --KenN 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--GrahamB 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
While one word may be safe from liberal redefinition today, it doesn't mean it's safe from liberal redefinition tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their secularized language. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on door, chair, and doorknob. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's freedom of speech, why don't you contribute to the project? --BradleyS 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --GrahamB 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative redefinition.

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. AlycaZ 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --KenN 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. AlycaZ 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --KenN 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus is an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --<3 Sally 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservapedia's article on Liberal clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --BradleyS 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
How come when Ambrose Bierce writes a dictionary for the devil he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --BradleyS 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Maybe a template could be useful here?

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the output from dictionary.com (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? KevinDavis Talk 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

How about this as a template? KevinDavis Talk 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

May I make some suggestions

atheism - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
atheist - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
agnosticism - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
agnostic - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
cosmodicy - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil

See the article Definition of atheism for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words. I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. Maratrean 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

I added "agnosticism" and "cosmodicy". I didn't do "atheism" because someone had already done it. For now, have only done the -ism words, not the -ist words. Maratrean 19:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Dictionary API

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use Google's dictionary API and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? KevinDavis Talk 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Parody

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--KenN 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? Patrick78 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on doorknob and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a liberal redefinition to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --MatthewQ 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine Zebra, you let us know.--SeanS 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --MatthewQ 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --SeanS 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --MatthewQ 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
And it wouldn't be a liberal redefinition then. IT would be society itself saying we like this word better for X definition, and word C should be something else or dropped. --SeanS 18:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
They have redefined Zebra as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --JefferyA 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--SeanS 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

A suggestion for proceeding

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--CamilleT 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Formatting - please read

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki supports sortable tables, I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. Kevin Davis Talk 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Interesting idea, not sure whether it will actually work in practice or not. Here's a suggestion: why not copy one of the existing pages to a user subpage, e.g. User:KevinDavis/Conservative Dictionary Project (A), and then you can experiment there... I think, once it becomes something concrete people can see, people will find it easier to make their minds up whether it is a good idea or not. Maratrean 21:22, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
This is a start; I don't know enough about how Mediawiki formats table to specifically collapse the borders, but how does this look as a first step? Thanks! Kevin Davis Talk 10:43, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
On the first line, change {|border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center;" cellpadding="2" to read {|border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center;" cellpadding="2" class="wikitable". That should collapse borders, and make it nicer looking. Also, I think we had a date of origin for some words as well? Maratrean 18:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

So... Parody

Can we try and keep it out?--SeanS 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--KenN 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Different types of redefinitions

One of the headings is "False liberal redefinition". I am wondering if in some cases "liberal" is the most accurate word to use here. For some words, e.g. those about religious topics, maybe "atheist" is more precise? Liberalism and atheism go together often, but not always - not all liberals are atheists (there are religious liberals), and not all atheists are liberals (e.g. S.E. Cupp) Maratrean 20:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools