Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

If you want to edit the Main Page please ask to do so beforehand here.

Thanks!

  • Conservapedia is an online resource tool that provides the facts while being fair to both Christianity and America. It is easy to use! Within the index, topics are broken down by era and subject, conveniently alphabetized so information is easily found. With new updates every day, Conservapedia will become a vast network for people to learn the facts the way they ought to be told. If you're looking for concise answers without politically correct and liberal bias, you will immensely prefer Conservapedia for all your informational needs.

<<My sister suggested wording similar to this for the third paragraph. She says the original sentence structure was grammatically unclear nor is there enough information to convey the message we want to get across. This could still use some editing though so please feel free to add more. The part in bold might need to be changed.>> --Katie 23:49, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Contents

concerning katie's suggestion

I like the wording that Katie proposed for the third paragraph, although I think the other three paragraphs could use re-wording as well. They don't flow right. (and sorry if this isn't posted correctly. trying to learn how this all works)--Styyna 12:30, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I know the Admins really dont like us changing the main page but the 3rd paragraph has to go. Sorry to say that. It is very choopy and needs a totall remodeling. Hate to say that. So if some one would be allow (such as Katie) to redo the front paragraphs and also the News line needs updated. Will N.

We should be improving the Main Page constantly. Let's see if there are other comments on this and then let's add some improvements. --Aschlafly 13:11, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I think that we should say that we give the christian/conservative point of view. We are not an unbiased website, and we should not pretend that we are. --TimSvendsen 23:09, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Quicklinks

I think that the Index and Debate topics should be in the quick links as well as on the side bar. The quick links are very prominent on the main page, and should feature all of our most important pages. I also think that the links should be ordered by importance, not alphabetically. --SharonS 09:17, 29 January 2007 (EST)

  • Reply. The sidebar is more prominent than the quicklinks section. I think that we should totaly eliminate the quicklinks and put them on the sidebar.

The Internet Around Us

Hey I found that someone blasted all over the internet some good things about us. I was really surprised. I dont know who did it but whoever did, thank you!!!!! Will N.

Why is there no logo in the top left corner? --Monotreme 09:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Site down?

Why is this site down so often? I find I can't access it for ten minutes at a time, sometimes. --Monotreme 09:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Is it just my computer or is it hard to upload pictures cause I cant upload anything. --Will N. 12:18, 4 March 2007 (EST)

The site is slow as molasses

I have been on the site for several hours and haven't looked at very much. That is because I gave a command to conservapedia and it was taking forever and so I opened new windows. I have very high speed internet access and the site is still super slow. I know the site is free but if you want it to compete with Wikipedia the site is going to need a faster computer server. Conservative 19:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative

We apologize for the slowness of the site. Our average traffic amount per day last week was around 300 views per day. Over the past two days that number jumped to 89,000 a day. Please be patient as we work for a solution. Thanks. Conservapedia Webmaster 19:56, 22 February 2007 (EST)

origin of the site

Is this site some kind of ironic joke on conservatives?? I've looked through quite a few pages, and it seems like a pastiche of stereotypical conservative ideology as seen from a liberal perspective.

You're probably looking at vandalism. Dpbsmith 21:25, 22 February 2007 (EST)

A warning about the user JoshuaZ

JoshuaZ (see: user page at: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:JoshuaZ ) is currently a user at your site. JoshuaZ is also fanatical evolutionist and admin at Wikipedia. He is also a bully boy at Wikipedia that stifles dissent against evolutionary ideas. I notice that JoshuaZ has many edits to the evolution article at this site. Be careful that JoshuaZ doesn't do at this site what he does at Wikipedia. Conservative 00:01, 23 February 2007 (EST)conservative

My observation is that JoshuaZ has made useful and well reasoned edits. --Horace 01:30, 23 February 2007 (EST)

All of Joshua's work has been in accordance with the rules and very helpful. We greatly appreciate his contributions. ~ SharonS 07:17, 23 February 2007 (EST)

I was in a hurry to warn conservapedia editors about JoshuaZ given my experiences with him a Wikipedia where he is an admin and a fanatical defender of the macroevolutionary position. At the time I made my warning the building I was in was closing soon and your site was operation very slow and erratic. I wanted to say that it appears as if JoshuaZ has made one edit of the Theory of Evolution article and he made several edits at the talk page for that article. I had mistakenly said he made several edits to the The Theory of Evolution article. Lastly, I would ask JoshuaZ and his supporters the following questions: Is Wikipedia biased in favor of the macroevolutionary position? Has JoshuaZ ever edited out material against the macroevolutionary position at Wikipedia? By the way, here is what JoshuaZ says about Conservapedia at his Wikipedia userpage discussion page: "Yeah, a lot of the scienceblog people had a lot of fun tearing it into tiny pieces. I've almost given up myself. The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [1] It seems as if JoshuaZ wants to direct those annoying creationist who point out flaws of the macroevolutionary position to Conservapedia so he spends less time removing their material from Wikipedia. Conservative 20:14, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Conservative, by all means point out what changes he has made that are improper. I don't believe that admins get banned for disbelieving in creationism (Does he even? I don't that he does). You make your arguments, let him make his. Nobody needs to be "warned." JoshuaZ is an administrator here, in good standing in the community. You are welcome to improve articles here, but please dont barge in and start casting stones. Just stop acting like a child.--Whatter 01:05, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Whatter, I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I can confirm that my edits to evolution topics in Wikipedia are changed within minutes by the pro-evolution editors and admins there. In one case much factual work about a hearing in Kansas that I wrote and entered was gone so quickly that I thought it had never been posted at all! But it had, yet pro-evolution Wiki editors stand by to censor anything and everything unflattering to their theory. This is beyond childish. It's pure censorship and one (of many) reasons why alternatives like Conservapedia are essential.
Only 10% of Americans believe in evolution the way it is taught in school. Ponder that statistic for a while. Can you identify any other activity imposed on 100% of the population yet accepted by only 10% of it?--Aschlafly 01:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
The income tax? Dpbsmith 09:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Aschlafly, I can understand the concern then. I have never been involved with Wikipedia, so I am not familiar with the goings on there, or however you may have been slighted there. I was interested by the Conservapedia concept, however, and I think that the best way to enhance Conservapedia is not through witchhunts, but through judicious monitering of use. If JoshuaZ is making unwarrented edits, it is right to be concerned. I have only seen him being helpful around here though, so I guess I'm biased in that direction. Cheers, --Whatter 12:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)
To answer the concern about " I would ask JoshuaZ and his supporters the following questions: Is Wikipedia biased in favor of the macroevolutionary position? Has JoshuaZ ever edited out material against the macroevolutionary position at Wikipedia?" To answer that question, briefly, the answer to first is yes and no, the answer to the second is yes. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy which includes an "undue weight" clause- this clause says briefly that when a position is an extreme minority viewpoint, it should be presented as such and that if it is sufficiently small a viewpoint then it should not be discussed in articles other than articles specifically about that topic. Now, among scientists, disagreeing with the macroevolutionary viewpoint is rare (even by the most generous defintions of scientist to include engineers and similar disciplines, around 95% of scientists accept evolution) and if one only looks at biologists the rejecting evolution becomes far smaller. Wikipedia policy does not present viewpoints based on the fraction of the American population which agrees with the viewpoint (which is a good thing, given the fraction of the US population that thinks that the sun revolves around the earth to use just one example). Furthermore, since Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia but a general encyclopedia that happens to be written in English (hence the term "English Language Wikipedia" not "American Wikipedia"), the American percentage becomes even more irrelevant. If this constitutes bias, then Wikipedia is biased, just as it is biased against geocentrism, flat-earthism, claims that the moon landings were a hoax, cold fusion, astrology, Reiki, and a thousand other things. Now subject to the above policy have I removed "material against the macroevolutionary position at Wikipedia?" Yes. Will I remove such material here? No since there is no policy that agitates for such removal. If the material is material that is so egregiously bad the Answers in Genesis or some other major creationist ministry says that the material is wrong, I will almost certainly note that with a citation to AIG (and have already done so on at least one article- see Charles Darwin for example).
To answer to concerns raised about the Wikipedia discussion where I said that "Yeah, a lot of the scienceblog people had a lot of fun tearing it into tiny pieces. I've almost given up myself. The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there". I stand by the first sentence, and a lesser extent to the second one. The sciencebloggers did clearly have a lot of fun ripping on Conservapedia (simply read the many entries and this will be apparent), furthermore, most of their critiques were justified. For example, our article on real numbers was painfully bad with at least one major factual inaccuracy. Similarly, our article on relativity is still woefully bad for a variety of reasons. On the whole, the sciencebloggers' criticism was justified. As to the second sentence, while maybe I should retract the word "only" from that sentence, it will be useful to refer creationists and various other groups over to here, just as I would most likely refer people who are intent on pushing a left wing viewpoint to Dkosipedia.
Finally, if any users have any doubts about my contributions here, I urge them to look at my edits and what other editors here think about my edits. For example, my expansion of the Creationism article. If you can find any "macroevolutionary bias" in those edits, I'd be surprised. JoshuaZ 13:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

JoshuaZ 13:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

JoshuaZ you wrote at Wikipedia regarding Conservapedia: "The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [2] You now write at Conservapedia, that maybe you should retract the "only". Please make up your mind. Should you make a retraction or shouldn't you? And I would be skeptical of a retraction you merely make at Conservapedia but fail to make at Wikipedia regarding your disparagement of Conservapedia. Conservative 20:16, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservapedia
Whatter, I believe you are mistaken about JoshuaZ being an administrator here and perhaps JoshuaZ would like to clear this matter up. Conservative 20:09, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

We have some enemys!:(

Hey i googled us and i found lots and lots of bad stuff about us.:( It was all on scienceblog. They same this is a dumb experiment and all kinds of stuff. As i see JoushuaZ has helped us, but i dont know if he is actually with us in the "long run". I say he might have some explaining to do. --Will N. 08:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)

If nobody's angry at you, it means you're not doing anything interesting. --Fullmetajacket 00:06, 11 March 2007 (EST)

conservatives, where is the extensive criticism of the evolutionary position?

In the conservapedia article which is prominently placed on the main page of this site and is entitled Examples of Bias in Wikipedia the following is written:

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored....For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution..., Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.... The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent."

Currently the article The Theory of Evolution is locked from further editing. I believe the article needs to be edited further in order to add more criticism of the macroevolutionary position.

For example, macroevolutionist have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it exactly occurs as can be seen below:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14).

In addition, creationist can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." Lord Solly Zuckerman (paleonthropologist of Birmingham University in England), Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p. 19.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

For more quotes regarding the fossil record please see: Fossil record quotes

Conservative 21:28, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Conservapedia's website is now as fast as greased lightning!

Conservapedia's website is now as fast as greased lightning! Conservapedia's material comes up even before I punch in a search request into my computer! Conservative 22:47, 28 February 2007 (EST)conservative

No 'join up' on the login page?

I had to email the Eagle Forums, and they kindly signed me up.

MediaWiki

Am I the only one that sees the irony in Conservapedia using MediaWiki? The Wiki software built by the Wikimedia Foundation?

No Problem for Wikimedia as they are liberal and respect the opinions of others. ;-) --Itsjustme 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Largest around?

The main page says both that Conservapedia has 3,800+ articles and that it is one of the largest wikis around. That is called an oxymoron. Could someone please look into this and put up a more accurate statement.

I don't see the oxymoron. Maybe you can explain? --<<-David R->> 23:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I'll add that the 3,800 is off, according to intra site statistics that should be more like 2,200.--Sub Zenyth 00:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Blockings

I'm not pointing to any specific cases, but the generally harsh blockings of many editors after only one edit is disturbing to me. I think it would be a good idea to develop a more universal warning system; if an edit could be construed as a genuine misunderstanding, there could be a warning. After that, a blocking could be fine. But recently an editor inserted ASCII art into dinosaur, and was blocked for a month. I just think this is turning people away from Conservapedia, and solidifying it's reputation as an "unintentional gold mine of hilarity". Just an idea. --Hojimachong 20:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia

As a moderate-liberal, I think that this site will be a great way to better understand a conservative point of view and I look forward to using it for that. However, I don't think that selling conservapedia as an alternative to the "biased" Wikipedia is accurate.

Anybody can edit Wikipedia, therefore a wide spectrum of ideas will be reflected in the articles (that's the idea anyway). If it so happens that more liberals edit Wiki that's not Wikipedias fault, more conservatives should get involved.

The same could be said about a mob, a gang, or any kind of group that becomes dominated by bullies. It's the lack of meaningful principles or restraint that is the problem, more than a lack of involvement by people on the other side.--Aschlafly 21:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)

There's far too much polarization in this country. Do we really need to split reality on political lines too? Wikipedia would be a great venue for liberals and conservatives alike to put their differences aside in pursuit of the real, unbiased truth.

We need to stop this left vs. right nonsense. Why should I have to watch Fox News and CNN, then read between the lines to find the truth?

The truth doesn't belong to the left or the right, most of the time it falls somewhere in-between.


Sources Template

On Wikipedia, I think there's some template to indicate that an article needs more sources. Is there a similar template here? Maybe some page could list all the articles that need sources, similar to the page that lists the articles that need to be expanded on. Just a thought. MountainDew 21:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Fairness to Christianity and America

"Conservapedia is an online resource tool that provides the facts while being fair to both Christianity and America"


Well facts aren't capable of being "fair", so how will Conservapedia be fair to Christianity and America while still considering itself an encyclopedia? Being fair requires opinion and encyclopedias do no allow opinion.
The only way Conservapedia can present the facts while being fair to Christianity and America is to only present facts that can be viewed as favorable to conservatives. Meanwhile, Conservapedia will leave out facts viewed as unfavorable.
Articels on Conservapedia present only the favorable PART of the story in order to be "fair" to America and Christianity. Any encyclopedia article that presents PART of the story should be considered poor. And certainly, any "encyclopedia" that deputizes opinion to the level of fact deserves to be considered piss poor.
Conservapedia is a blog with a search engine, nothing more.

CE as Anti-Christian

I would like to call out the possible flaw in the argument that use of CE for dating is anti-Christian. The argument used here (see Conservapedia Commandments), if applied in the other direction, would pretty much be similar to me saying the use of anno Domini is anti-Hebrew, anti-Hindu, or anti-Chinese because it denies the "historical basis" of those dating systems. --trekie9001 03:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Furthermore, I would like to say that this seems to be more of an opinion and should be relegated, according to Commandment 6, to a debate page and moved from the main page. (I would do this myself but wikis sometimes get disturbed if you change anything other than typos on the main page.) --trekie9001 03:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Your are right. The regulation is opinion not fact-based and it has a Christian bias. But you must be aware that this is the conservapedia. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia for and from christian conservatives in the USA so by definition it has to have a conservative, a christian an an US-American bias. If this is a problem for you, you should use the liberal wikipedia. --Itsjustme 18:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)
The fact is, BCE/CE came into use because people were against the christian implications of the BC/AD dating system. So right or wrong the system is anti-christian. --TimSvendsen 19:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Misrepresentation of Article Count

The main page lists the number of articles to be 3800+ however the MediaWiki provided statistics [3] state that only 2,378 pages that most likely contain legit content. What gives? --trekie9001 05:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

How to handle documents not originaly authored?

There are a number of articles that are currently (example: Marsupial) or have been (example: Iraq) copied from Wikipedia. As the Coyrights page has not been filled out, how does Conservapedia handle such? Is the material submitted here likewise GDFL? Not everything that is resource that allows free copying of the material is public domain. --Mtur 17:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Topics that probably need to have entries

These are all subjects that liberals bring up when arguing with conservatives. If this site purports to be presenting the long-suppressed conservative viewpoint, I think these subjects need to be discussed:

Ted Haggard, Jim/Tammy Faye Bakker, Oliver North, Ralph Reed, G. Gordon Liddy, Jack Abramoff, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly/Neil Cavuto/Sean Hannity/John Gibson, Abstinence, Ex-gay,

     /Sex/Masterbation/Homosexuality/other sexual terms, 

Marijuana/other illicit drugs, Repression, Bigotry, Patriarchy, Contraception,

   ography, 

Pregnancy, Prostitution --WOVcenter 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)


List of Republican candidates on the main page

For the sake of inclusiveness, we probably ought to add Mitt Romney to the list, particularly after the CPAC. MountainDew 15:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

At the bottom of the page...

The link "Articles_to_be_improved" links to... well.. Articles_to_be_improved. It should go to Category:Articles_needing_major_improvement, as it's irritating to go through a page clicking on the link. GofG 21:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Namespaces

A fundamental problem with the organization of Conservapedia is, I believe, on the technological level.

On Wikipedia, there exist technological divisions between called "namespaces". These separate articles, user pages, pages about the workings of the encyclopedia itself and its policies, help pages, etc. These are manifested by prefixes before the relevant pages, in the form of Namespace:Example, except in the case of the article namespace, the "main" namespace. These prevent pages such as, say, the article on vandalism and the policy on vandalization of the encyclopedia separate. I believe that these would be an excellent addition to the Conservapedia, and request the assistance of any skilled in PHP to assist in implementing it, if no one desires to take issue with the idea. Geekman314(contact me) 23:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, there are namespaces on Conservapedia, but I don't know which specifically exist. It would be helpful to use the Conservapedia: namespace, if it already exists, and create it if it does not. In addition, a Debate: namespace might be conducive to organization. Geekman314(contact me) 00:00, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Anti-British bias? Also, does Conservapedia give Wikipedia more legitimacy?

While I can understand more or less where Conservapedia is coming from in most of its criticisms of Wikipedia [[4]], I'm flummoxed by the contempt for British spellings. Even if most Wikipedia users are American (and I haven't seen any data to assess that claim one way or the other), I don't recall Wikipedia purporting to be an American encyclopedia. Moreover, the usage of British (or, really, non-American) spellings and terms doesn't really bother me. It's easy to forget that the majority of English speakers aren't American. Moreover, English speakers in the rest of the world, from the UK to Canada to India, Australia, South Africa and beyond, generally use British spellings. The language is English, after all. And we only refer to it as "British English" because it's so easy to forget that "English" can describe just the country/people instead of the entire language, and "English English" would be a rather peculiar term. So, really, I don't think the purported "Anglophile" bias of Wikipedia is a legitimate criticism. Perhaps Conservapedia, by contrast, is styling itself as a distinctly "American" encyclopedia -- which, I might add, makes it all the more paradoxical that the Encyclopedia Britannica gets cited as a model -- but I don't think British spellings should be construed as a symptom of "liberal" bias, unless you're applying a rather odd and unorthodox definition of "liberal."

Along those lines, I see that one of the criticisms of Wikipedia the founders of Conservapedia like to cite is how the editors of Wikipedia run "six times as liberal as the American public," which makes it irredeemably "liberal."

First, I didn't see sources for either the survey data of Wikipedia editors' political preferences, or for those of the American public writ large. This claim can only be as trustworthy as the evidence it's based on, and in the absence of evidence I'm inclined to dismiss it altogether.

Second, this again misconstrues Wikipedia's mission by trying to depict it as an "American" encyclopedia, when in fact Wikipedia makes no such claims, and instead prides itself on being a global community. So, if you consider that Wikipedia's imagined constituency is not narrowly American, but potentially encompasses the entire planet, or at least all the world's English speakers, then judging its "liberal bias" according to the standard of the American public is just inappropriate.

I'm not saying I disagree that Wikipedia editors and contributors tend to be more liberal than not. And I certainly agree that Wikipedia often gets important elements of facts and interpretation wrong. Studies in the Chronicle of Higher Education found that Wikipedia often got important elements wrong, especially in the case of historical events (and less so with the sciences). Although, in fairness, Wikipedia's accuracy was pretty comparable to that of established encyclopedias, like Britannica.

The real lesson in this is that encyclopedias in general tend to be problematic sources of information and knowledge, and shouldn't be used as a substitute for more substantive research. My hope would be that the creation of something like Conservapedia and its claims of bias would encourage students and users to be more skeptical of encyclopedias and sources in general. However, my fear is that most users will see Conservapedia wearing its conservative bias on its sleeve, thus concluding that its agenda is serving a conservative ideology rather than the truth, and leading them to trust Wikipedia all the more for not professing any specific political orientation.

Wikipedia is a scourge for those of us who teach at the university level. And given some of the significant problems I've mentioned, I fear that Conservapedia will become a scourge as well, whether directly or indirectly.

Servers

Why are the Conservapedia servers so slow? Is it merely the lack of sufficient CPU power, a lack of bandwidth, or does it have to do with the OS that's being run? Geekman314(contact me) 10:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Why don't we have the Bible on here?

Having the whole thing would make linking references to it much easier, and I'm pretty sure it's not copyrighted. User:Fullmetajacket

Changes to the Main Page

The main page still needs to be changed. It has not been improved, even with these changes. The main page now claims that the information in Abortion is concealed on Wikipedia. This is not true; there is an entire article about it on wikipedia, whether or not the article is biased. Please, someone who has sufficient priveleges, either respond to me, or change the main page to reflect the fact that they have a biased article on it, rather than not having anything on it at all. GofG 22:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Vandalism

A vandal moved this page to the page F-word (except the actual word.) Someone immediatly recreated the page, so I could not move the page F-word back to this page. Instead, I copy pasted the contents from there to here. As such, the history of this page is now at the page F-word, which seems not to exist anymore. Could someone please:

  • A: Tell David R not to revert people without good reason to, especially twice in a row
  • B: Figure out how to get the history of this page back.

Thanks! GofG 23:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

  • A: I had very good reason, which I have already explained to you...Please pay attention. Writing things more than twice just feels like a waste of effort, especially on ignorant users.
  • B: It is already back. Again - attention.

--<<-David R->> 23:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)

While the content is back, the HISTORY of the page most definitevly ends about 20 minutes ago. I was the one who restored the content, but I did so in a way where an administrator now needs to go back and look at the history of the F-word page to get the history back to here. And no, you never told me why you reverted. GofG 23:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)
In addition to that, I find it rather upsetting that you would go as far as to call me ignorant when you yourself are unaware of the problem. No offense :D. GofG 23:46, 10 March 2007 (EST)
because they did have any value as the page issue had been taken care of. 
Plus they just added the unneeded vulgarity where it could not "be lost in the recent history".

Again - ignorant :P --<<-David R->> 23:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. There is no problem. The history for that page and the page itself were deleted. Only Sysops have access to deleted pages. Thought I'd clear that up for you.

If that was actually posted anywhere, I cannot find where it was posted. Not on my user talk page, not on here. Where else would I see it? And by the way, it has NOT BEEN FIXED. The history STILL only goes back about 20 minutes.
Sigh, you don't understand. Let's say I wanted to see who made an edit to this page say 2 days ago. I couldn't, because the history only goes back to about 30 minutes ago. A sysop could fix this; that is what I am asking for. Please stop calling me ignorant. The very fact that that page was deleted is what is causing the problem.GofG 23:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The page's name was a vulgar expression. There was nothing posted on it except what is shown on this talk page. Why on earth would you need to make an edit on such a page?!?! Let's say your request was reasonable: if it were not deleted, you could use the link at the top of the recent history page to see edits up to 500. Two days ago might not work. I am a Sysop. There is still no problem to be fixed. --<<-David R->> 23:58, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You still don't understand. When the page was moved from Talk:Main_Page to F-word, the HISTORY of Talk:Main_Page was also moved. So the HISTORY was then at F-word. When F-word was deleted, the HISTORY of Talk:Main_Page was deleted. A sysop can go back to the history of the F-word and merge it with Talk:Main_Page, putting the history back where it goes. I assume you know this...?GofG 00:04, 11 March 2007 (EST)
I notice that someone still hasn't done something about this. Could someone please merge the histories? GofG 10:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Bermuda Triangle, et al

I have been doing Wikipedia articles for a period of time, and one of my little rules is to just stick with the facts. Facts equals truth, which is just plain common sense. One of the topics I had done over there was on the Bermuda Triangle, that diabolical body of water famous for swallowing ships, aircraft, people, and leaving nothing behind except maybe questions about extraterrestrials and Jeane Dixon doing some card reading. However, I am one of the few who believe that the Triangle is a lot of bunk, it was an invented tale, and I've pulled up and used documentation to prove it. That didn't sit well with a lot of people who think otherwise, and in the name of "balance" insist that the article be changed to insinuate that the basic facts refuting the popular notion are wrong.

This also applies to less controversial articles. I've seen people alter history and science on Wikipedia because they just didn't like it. I've seen people change or remove content supportive of Christianity, the Bible, creation by God, etc, and then attack the supporters of such content on the talk pages of the articles in question. The only concensus it seems is the hatred.

What I intend to do is to re-write the articles I have created or used over there and post them over here, totally original of course in keeping with Conservapedia's policy, but still sticking with facts. I still intend to do the same over there; maybe being a thorn in the side. What say you? Karajou 00:00, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Ideas for the main page

  • Needs more color...meaning more pictures.
  • Needs a good logo. I like the "C-cross" symbol, by the way.
  • Needs "featured articles". I know that's copying Wikipedia to some extent, but why not have articles that are so good you want to show them off!

Karajou 00:06, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Physics articles not informative.

As physics is one of the subjects i am competent in, i would jugde the average quality of your physics articles to be very low. As a matter of fact as i judge the average quality on physics on wikipedia to be only mediocre, my scale does not go down far enough to rate the placeholder stubs that are called articles here. Only citing a single textbook with one (sometimes wrong) sentence even for major topics sheds light on how seriously you consider science. Would a first semester give these anwers he would fail the test. And no - i am not going to correct it.

If you're not going to correct it, why even bother showing up here? If you're competent in physics as you've said, then the articles in question would benefit by your expertise. Karajou 03:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm with Karajou. If you don't want to fix it, don't whine about it. I can't do anything because I don't have enough expertise in the subject to do anything about it myself. MountainDew 03:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm terrible in physics, so anything I would do would be bad! Karajou 03:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

First, I am not a conservative (but i find it good that you try to condense your view of the world in conservapedia - I believe that if the project goes well a constructive discussion can follow, and I hope that this is you goal), so tell me why should I invest work in upgrading your articles; i am quite busy with my work. Second, i refruse to copy textbook knowlegde. Writing a good up to date articles is much more that that. Moreover it is difficult for me to write in American English, since i was educated mainly in British Enlish and am no native english speaker at all, as you most likely noticed already. Since you explicitly value writing in a language i am not really fluent (which I fully accept, since languages and dialects are parts of cultural heritage), I would not rather like to pollute your articles with a vast mixture of strange expressions.

I just found that it may be of interest to the conservative community how articles which supposed to be used for building scientific claims upon, are perceived by an observer from the outside. So the only thing I am willing to and I can do is to tell where the problems are, which I figured out after trying the conservapedia physics section. If you would prefer it I could mark each entry which I find. But i suggest that you put a certain minimum length to scientific topics. At least 3 paragraphs schould be written, containing the definition, a short discussion to the more abstract and less abstract defintions of the term and also important interrelations. (I personally was dissappointed with the entries for "heat" and "temperature").

If you can take the time out to write a rebuttal here, you can take the time out to write or correct a physics article.
You can tell anyone where the problems are, so to speak, but there are many here who just have no knowledge of what physics are, and that includes myself. Essentually, I'd be writing gibberish. What you would do is to take your time; grab the article about heat for example, and re-write it as pertaining to physics. I know some articles here suffer from a lack of detail; I am currently working to correct that. I'm sure physics needs the same attention. And who knows...you just might enjoy doing it! Karajou 04:09, 11 March 2007 (EDT)


This was no a rebuttal, it was a fair evaluation. The main problem is: you would wonder how quickly you get from thermodynamics to evolution. Writing an good article about something like temperature takes days to weeks. I can not write this article in the way required by conservapedia, since temperature is strongly related to entropy (even more than to "energy"), which is related to information and there we are at one of the central questions of evolution: Where does the information come from. Thinking about ergodic systems, the direction of time and the laws of thermodynamics quickly leads you to such an (Important!) question. As I understand Conservapedia expressed explicitly its wishes that this way of interpreting science (consistent the current "mainstream", "liberal" science, opposed by conservapedia) is not the topic of the project. Would I post my interpretation of nonlinear systems, thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium (e.g. life) and from that guess about the standard idea about how the first self-replicating proteins assembled "accidentally" and how likely or unlikely that was, it would probably fail the criteria for articles on conservapedia. Would I do that, I should post my views to somewhere else (Wikipedia for example). I will not circumvent or oppose the restrictions at Conservapedia on the subjects - I accept that other views of the world may have other foundations than my ones have. However I would be interested in a serious view of the people opposing evolution on the laws of thermodynamics. Consider my "rebuttal" as an friendly hint in an scientific discussion. The other interpretation of the entry on "temperature" would be that people opposing evolution do not understand statistical physics at all. I am not so arrogant to make this conclusion; I show this by talking here. This is more than most of my colleagues would do. I personally am not hurt by the fact that people believe that the Earth was created 6600 years ago at four o'clock in the afternoon. As a scientist I am quite capable of turning doublethink [[Doublethink]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink] on and off. But somebody has to help me to see the other interpretation.


Ok now i looked at the history section of "the second law of thermodynamics" after wondering why it's protected. Now my conclusion is that indeed the understanding on statistical mechanics is a little bit underdeveloped here. Protecting an article as crucial as this one makes my impression more firm that an open scientific discussion is not liked, not even on the level of correcting obvious mistakes.

Photos, charts, etc

Articles need illustrations. I tried uploading a public-domain photo for the Bible article, but for some reason the article won't let me use it. Any help would be appreciated.

And this leads to illustrations in general. Each article here should be made better, whether it is in the quality of the writing, the content of the sources, or the illustrations, and there has to be an easy way to get those illustrations posted into the articles. Also, I don't see any copyright indicator tags or templates. Would such make Conservapedia better as a whole? Karajou 03:34, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed the photo. Image was doubled. Geo. 04:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I thank you for it. And I also have seen where I went wrong. Lesson learned! Karajou 15:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia, science & CreationWiki

Just a thought. Given that the CreationWiki covers science in some detail is it worth devoting so much time to scientific entries in conservapedia? Surely a brief summary (100-200) words of the equivalent CreationWiki page and its appropriate citation would be adequate. Shouldn't conservapedia focus on more political and historical issues?--AustinM 11:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

A brief summary is not adequate here. I've spotted a few articles related to the Bible in which they are one paragraph long or less; certainly there are many more in Conservapedia which suffer from that. I'm correcting the Bible article of this, and if I have to I'll work on every last one until they're all filled to the brim with detail! Karajou 12:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
The arguments which plague the scienctific articles here have all ready been settled on CreationWiki, so is there any point in having them again? I am in agreement with you on the length of other articles in Conservapedia. --AustinM 13:05, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Unwise on two counts. One, we'd be effectively stating that we feel the material on CreationWiki is sound; even if that were true now, we have absolutely no control over what changes will be made in future. Two, CreationWiki is littered with prime examples of arrant nonsense. We'd be as well linking to Kent Hovind. Tsumetai 14:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not it's settled on CreationWiki is immaterial; Conservapedia is essentially a separate website, and as a result it needs its own, well-written articles. Karajou 15:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Article Requests?

Where can we submit requests for articles?

Thanks. Yazeed

I think the idea for editors to write the articles, not request them. That said, feel free to request entries here. I look forward to your article submissions.--Aschlafly 14:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I've created an article requests page. Geekman314(contact me) 19:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism 2

Please, I beg, someone with sysop priveledges merge the two histories of this page and the old page back together. There is a ton of history that has been lost. GofG 16:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

4100 entries

Where does this statistic come from? GofG 19:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, we only have 40,643 articles Shii 20:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Then why does it say on the main page that we have 4100+ entries? GofG 20:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
That statistic does not include stubs. The one on the Main Page does. --<<-David R->> 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
It most certainly does include stubs. There's no criteria to which it bases it's stats on, as far as my knowledge goes. Nevermind, I was wrong. GofG 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Why are we including debate topics, lectures, and stubs in our count anyway? They should not count as they are non-encyclopaedic. GofG 20:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
We've debated this before. The debate topics and lectures are very useful and an advantage of Conservapedia over Wikipedia. They are of greater interest and take more time than other entries. The lectures are far longer than most entries. So these should be included. As to stubs, that's a misnomer. Conciseness is to be favored and Wikipedia would be far better off it began to emphasize it.--Aschlafly 20:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but should a stub such as Censorship or Ukraine be included in our entry number? Those don't say anything that anyone already didn't know. GofG 20:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Archive

I am going to archive this page, putting it at Talk:Main_Page/archive1, in the next few minutes, if no one objects. I will be doing so using a copy-paste method so that the history of this page is preserved until the move vandalism is sorted it; I don't want to further complicate that incident. Please, if you object to the archiving, do so. GofG 21:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools