Talk:Main Page/archive22

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Deceit

There's an error on the section about Wikipedia and deceit. It links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29, when it should link to the general article on "Deceit", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit . This redirects to the article "Lie" rather than the post punk band as is claimed. As it is now, the blurb is, well deceitful. The irony is overwhelming.

The irony in your mistaken claim of "error" is indeed overwhelming. There is no error in Conservapedia's description, which is completely correct. I'd point you to Wikipedia so you can learn what deceit is, but as noted it does not have a correct entry for it. Try a dictionary, or try our entry on deceit. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:53, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Right now, searching for deceit [on Wikipedia] links to the article on Conservapedia. [<- that was an example of liberal vandalism on Wikipedia, which is rampant there.--Aschlafly 09:55, 11 September 2007 (EDT)] Godspeed.

Can anyone who's not American use this site?

It just seems that as a liberally-inclined guy from Scotland, I have no relevance to this site and so contributing to it would be futile. I am an editor of Wikipedia, however.--Frog 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Liberals and non-Americans are encouraged to use this site. You might be able to improve the article on Scotland, etc. What are your interests? Do a search and find an article you can improve. --Crocoite 15:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
  • However, please remember that contrary to Wikipedia, we do not embrace total neutrality, and we are a Christian-friendly, Conservative politically friendly encyclopedia. A good example is our article on Jesus Christ. We present his being the Son of God as a fact, not a theory, we do not say it is "believed" he is the Son of God, we state it. So, if you are of the mind that through debate and argument you will convince anyone here that we are "wrong", please know that will not happen. If you can utilize your talents to add, as Crocoite said above, to our articles without trying to repudiate them, that would be a big help! And of course in any encyclopedia there are thousands of present articles, and tens of thousands more that need to be created, that do not touch upon faith and moral issues! If you need help or assistance, just post on my talk page, or use the email link. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:27, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Someone erased my last post, but I will again say that I think the above answer is very honest, appropriate and informataive. thanks, Jsusman 12:36, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Is this site serious?

I am completely new here (I only registered about 3 minutes ago) and so am not fully sure what this site is about. As the title says, is this site serious or is it just a parody site? This is not intended to be offensive or a sarcastic comment, I simply cannot actually tell. --Hydraton31 17:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, why wouldn't this site be serious? DanH 17:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

"Hydraton31", people asked the same of Jesus, Isaac Newton, Ronald Reagan, and others like them: "are you serious"??? It takes an open mind to learn and grow. Welcome.--Aschlafly 17:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

It is not that I am unwilling to accept new ideas, but I found some of the views so extreme as to seem rather hyperbolic. However, this was simply my opinion. I might have time to read more and see. --Hydraton31 17:17, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Just curious, what views did you find "so extreme"? Bohdan 17:25, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm curious also. Within the 3 minutes you mentioned above, how much could you have read and reflected on it??? Wouldn't that be a sign of close-mindedness to draw conclusions before reading and thinking about something? That's OK, as long as you're open-minded now. Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 17:49, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Another liberal making a thinly veiled contemptuous question rather than making a statement they would actually have to support. Look how easy it is do what the liberal just did: Is your choice of posing a question rather than making a statement you would have to actually support some kind of liberal parody? Conservative 19:28, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
These accusations are fairly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. You should show some proof before making your argument.(ErstBlenchPoet 09:52, 2 September 2007 (EDT))
Alright, let me try this. I am also a liberal. Yes, I feel certain that I will end up banned for that. I also found some of the view very extreme, even for a conservative wiki. For example: The simply pathetic page on Sexual Intercourse, much of the article on Communism (shouldn't that article mainly be about Communism as an idea, with a section on it in practice?). I also found the fact that many of the articles are locked to be presumptuous at the least, as if you were saying that they were perfect as they are. Please understand, I'm not here to simply bash you all. I'm not writing this to prove the validity of my viewpoint over yours. I'm just giving my opinions on your site. --Goldstein 13:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

The locking is often to prevent edit wars (and if you read the associated talk pages you'd appreciate that pretty soon people would spend their entire time undoing other people's edits). I agree with you, though, on the ludicrous refusal to countenance any discussion of communist theory. Simple grunts of "Dirty Commies" suffice. Pachyderm 13:23, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. This entire wiki would gain a lot more credibility if you simply re-write these and other articles to be less obviously biased. You don't have to remove the bias completely, as this is a conservative wiki, but don't simply write "Dirty Commies".--Goldstein 13:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Good point; we'll make it "Dirty commie killers", as you suggest. Rob Smith 15:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree. Might as well not sugar-coat it and pretend, as the Liberals do, that they didn't commit a bigger genocide than Hitler! And here I am only speaking of the Soviet communists, not even bringing into it the Chinese! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:32, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • The difference is this, while nazis practiced anti-semitism and racial discrimintory genocide, communists have always been equal opportunity killers. Rob Smith 15:35, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Christian Lawsuit

Reading through that article, they say that "Corder had not included those remarks during rehearsals." Intentionally withholding something she knew would get cut and just doing it during the ceremony.... Sounds like Deceit to me.... Or is only Liberal deceit counted? Blackguy 14:46, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

  • What is sounds like to me is the talk of someone who has given darn few speeches, nor has any idea of how often speakers veer from their prepared text. Sounds even more like a deceitful Liberal, with a pre-planned agenda, guffawing over how clever he thought his post was. Blackguy, please stop trolling and start contributing. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:23, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

No TK, this is a case of conservative deceit. --Fain 17:30, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, I do know this is typical Liberal deceit:

  • Fain (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 21:31, 3 September 2007) (Earliest: 21:29, 3 September 2007) [3]
  • Suder (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 00:06, 2 September 2007) (Earliest: 00:06, 2 September 2007) [1]
  • Mojojojo (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 03:47, 30 August 2007) (Earliest: 03:47, 30 August 2007) [1]

...someone signing up with multiple sock accounts to troll and vandalize. Bye. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:10, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it works

It would seem that this site only works because of its aggressive policy of protecting so many pages, banning users who make good faith edits that aren't liked and even removing comments that arn't liked, surly that goes against what a Wiki is, and you would be better off with some other sort of website? PinkFloyd 15:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Well gee, maybe you are from someplace where political correctness has run amok, and Internet sites and even people are not allowed by some "Mobocracy" to have a POV? Maybe you are so conditioned to revisionist thinking, some globalist outlook, that you think anyone who disagrees with your political left-of-center agenda shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose what our articles should say? You do understand, don't you, that NPOV is having a POV? That is because it is people deciding what is and is not expressing one. And if you had done your homework, and investigated the Wikimedia Software, you would see there are literally hundreds of configurations built into it, from requiring users to register to edit, to not allowing anyone to edit except Administrators. So your good idea of what a wiki is, is just that; your own good idea, not the developers and inventors of it. Oh, one more thing: Please try and clear your mind, and report back here the exact percentage of "protected" articles, okay? Out of the total number here, it is a very, very small percentage. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

So just because I think this site shouldn't be so protected makes me center left does it? PinkFloyd 15:40, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

It's really just a time saving device; rather than follow trolls with a pooper scooper, we can save ourselves time and afford trolls the opportunity to think through their edits a little bit. Besides, this saves a good faith editor from getting blocked before he justs parrots the party line, using DNC/MSNBC/CNN/AP talking points. Rob Smith 15:47, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Are you saying I was wrong in saying so? If so, I stand corrected! And Rob, you forgot to include moveon.org and the dailykos.com in that list....;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:51, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't like the whole left right badge, I like to have my own opinion, most don't sit well with either left or right arguments,you could call me a compromieist. PinkFloyd 16:02, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Wow. Now that's a shock. Not! So, in your world, there isn't any black or white, eh? Everything is a shade of gray? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Interesting, "compromietist," "half a loaf is better than none". The word "Lord" comes from "loaf ward," of "keeper of the loaves." So even in requesting half a loaf, would User:Pink Floyd agree that half loaf comes from the Lord? Rob Smith 16:46, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't think he would take any loafs, not even half, unless made in Union shop. Well, I could be wrong. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:49, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Er, surely that should be loaves? Kenservative 14:27, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Hurricane Felix

Again we have a hurricane coming. This one is a giant. I may be away for some time. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Our prayers are with you, Joaquin. The month of September is always rough for Hurricanes. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:52, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
I've always struggled with this question: "Is God powerful enough to alter the path of an impending hurricane to save someone's life?". Your thoughts? --JoeBloggs 10:50, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Certainly, if it is His will. How often do we read in the news of people miraculously survive direct hits by hurricanes, or the hurricane shifted from its predicted path? --JonathanDrain 07:48, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I think I understand what you're saying. I am a bit confused though as to when he actually decides to use "His will", because often the damage from "natural" disasters seems quite random. For example, the tsunami from 2004 that devastated countries in the Indian Ocean. Thousands of people died, but thousands of people were also spared by His will, many of them even were non-Christians. --JoeBloggs 09:11, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

This is How Liberals Think

How liberals think is that some of those within our tent are not always right nor do we necessarily agree with them. So, it is incorrect to quote some obsucre professor of IR on some proposed welfare program and headline it with "how liberals think".

May I write a brief article about Larry Craig, Tom Foley and Ted Haggard, and headline it, "How Conservatives feel about morality"? Of course not, because not all conservatives act like these men.

Perhaps a weakness of this site, is not so much that it espouses conservative Christian views, (after all that is what you say your raison d'etre is) but it's constant attacks on liberals. More to the point, anything that is not liked my many of the contributors is assumed to liberalism.

In my business career I have often had to choose products or services among various competitors. The salesperson who focused on the virtue of his product rather than how terrible his competitors were, always received a more favorable hearing.

--TraJSmith 20:08, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Mike Nifong

Here's some biographical info on Mike Nifong; [1][2] Can we get a volunteer to get it started for the Main Page? Thank you. Rob Smith 20:49, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Christian Conservative Stance on the Issue of Petrodollar Warfare

Hi guys,

I'm new to the site. I've browsed through some of the pages, but really haven't contributed until recently. I recently created a page about Petrodollar warfare, which is a very complex issue, but one that I think underlies many important political issues of our day. I'd love it if people could help contribute to the page (for those with an interest in politics or the economy), and discuss the concept, which doesn't get much coverage in the mainstream media. Please feel free to drop me a line, or discuss the issue. I really want to see how the Christian Conservative community feels in regards to this very important topic.--McGovern 18:33, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

This is a liberal article and I have deleted it. Here's a few excerpts:
"The phrase comes from Clark's novel "Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar," in which Clark argues the war in Iraq was waged, not as a front against terrorism or as a last-ditch effort to find and destroy the regime's weapons of mass destruction, but to maintain dollar hegemony in the world marketplace."
"According to Clark, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war with the intention of installing a pro-American government in Iraq, establishing multiple American military bases in the Middle-East before the onset of peak oil production, and most importantly, returning the petrocurrency of Iraq to dollars, with the hope of deterring OPEC from switching their petrocurrency to the euro as an 'alternative oil transaction currency'."
McGovern is a sock account of Peppersauce:
McGovern (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 22:35, September 5, 2007) (Earliest: 01:38, September 5, 2007) [37]
Peppersauce (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 05:09, September 3, 2007) (Earliest: 05:09, September 3, 2007) [1]
21:44, September 2, 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Peppersauce (contribs)" with an expiry time of 5 years (Troller)
McGovern has been perma banned as a sockpuppet as well. --Crocoite 19:49, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Good call. "Petrodollar warfare" can't even be called liberal. It's simply a wacky conspiracy theory with no grounding in mainstream economic theory. Traditional Conservative 23:03, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

I was wondering if this could be changed to a more international logo. The current logo makes this wiki look American based. Although I don't really have any suggestions yet.

-- RichardTTalk 20:03, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi everyone.

I don't know much about this website, can someone help me out? I'm 14 years old and I live in Canada. I am a devoted Christian/Catholic, and my parents' friends told me about this website. Is this website just for posting information, or can you talk with people? I really would like to talk to others with Christian values, because most of the kids at my school don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and many don't even believe in God, and I go to a Catholic school! I'm really losing faith that there are people out there who believe in and love God as much as I do. Nice to meet you! --Jadr 20:49, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

RichardT, As far as I can tell, Conservapedia seems to be centralized around American conservatism, which explains the American flag in the background. Earlier in its existence it was very hung up on maintaining an American image, and actively quelled activity it felt was "Un-American". While this is certainly their right, it does elmiminate most possibilities of making Conservapedia more international. [[Adam 23:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]

  • Conservapedia welcomes users from all countries, but bear in mind that articles are expected to adhere to an American, Christian and conservative worldview. One of the reasons behind the Conservapedia project is that Wikipedia promotes a very global and neutral point of view, which doesn't accurately represent the majority of Americans. --JonathanDrain 10:04, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Not all Americans are conservative, and not all conservatives are Americans. Being Canadian myself I find that a more international logo would allow more people from other countries to be interested in helping out with this site's main goals. Being international doesn't make Conservapedia a "neutral" point of view. It will still be a Conservative PoV. -- RichardTTalk 15:53, 6 September 2007(EDT)

  • I agree. You are free to submit something you feel is more suitable, for consideration! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the logo is offputting. There are plenty of classic conservatives in other countries. Think Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Ariel Sharon. There are also plenty of Jewish conservatives. Think Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon. There are even plenty of Atheist conservatives. Are they not welcome here? DavidSGraff 00:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I think that having a American logo has its pros and cons but I favor a more international logo. I think a benefit of the current American logo is that perhaps (and I am not sure) American conservative are more socially conservative whereas many self identified European conservatives may be merely fiscal conservatives. I don't pretend to know much about Australia other to say that I have met Aussie conservative who were very socially conservative. Regardless, I would hate for Conservapedia to go more socially conservative in its content. On the other hand, having a international logo would attract more conservatives which would boost our internet traffic which in turn would boost our internet search engine rankings. This would make Conservapedia a potentially better site as more contributors means more content (although I realize that more content does not necessarily mean a better encyclopedia as it is quality content that truly matters). Also, the higher our internet search engine rankings the more influential Conservapedia will be. Conservative 16:06, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

What do you guys think of a picture of Ronald Reagan(or any other popular conservative) as the logo?

-- RichardTTalk 22:21, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Ronald Reagan is a hero to many, but the conservative movement is far bigger than any one individual. Would you expect a site devoted to math to use the image of a great mathematician as its logo? I think not. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:52, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

What kind of logo can all conservatives everywhere agree on? What is it that brings us all together?

-- RichardTTalk 23:30, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

There's always room for improvement, and we all welcome suggestions. The American flag does convey a symbol of conservatism for many, including non-Americans. But if there's a better idea, let's consider it. In Christ,--Aschlafly 23:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
I have a suggestion that may not seem obvious at first: a labarum, the chi-rho symbol that Constantine had painted on the shields of his legions before the Battle of Milvian Bridge. It would reflect the Christian point of view on the site and the traditional respect we conservatives have for traditional Western civilization. Traditional Conservative 23:17, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing in the world...

The entry that says "Wikipedia thinks deceit is a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."[2] Wikipedia does not have an entry on deceit that explains it correctly, and Wikipedia fails to give meaningful examples as Conservapedia does here." is ridiculous. Of course they don't have an entry on deceit; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This encyclopedia sucks. And what do you guys have against liberalism? I'm a Catholic (therefore, a Conservative), and I am an active and happy editor there. You guys need to get lives... --Boricuaeddie 22:46, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Not all self proclaimed Catholics are conservatives. John Kerry states he is a Catholic. Secondly, read the Conservapedia:Commandments regarding the 90/10 rule which you are violating. Next, I suggest reading the Conservapedia article on Wikipedia which demonstrates that Wikipedia is liberal. Lastly, if you really were a conservative you would know why we believe liberalism is errant. Conservative 22:57, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal is just a word, a vague outlining of related thoughts and beliefs, just like "conservative". More on the topic, I disagree with this article, as it is hardly "breaking news", and is also false. A Wikipedia search of "deceit" immediately redirects me to "Lie", which to me seems an accurate and descriptive article on the term. Personally, I think Conservapedia should worry less about actively trying to discredit its opponents (namely Wikipedia) and focus on less petty and trivial matters. Getting hung up on semantics and constant slander of opponents never helps.

Sorry, I'll sign my comments from now on! [[Adam 23:15, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]

As to you're "liberal is just a word" thing - what? Yes - liberal is an adjective - glad we have that agreed upon. As to you're second argument- I agree with you there, I mean if they have something on lie that should be sufficient. As to you're third point - I disagree. I think that discrediting the opposition is the only way to get people to join CP. Most people don't know that what they're reading on Wikipedia is biased - so we have to prove to them that it is.--Iduan 23:31, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

One of the reasons Conservapedia was founded was to eliminate the perceived Liberal bias inherent in Wikipedia and large information sources like CNN or MSNBC. However, by constantly trying to discredit Wikipedia and only ever pushing a "Conservative" take on facts or events, one bias has been substituted for another. In my personal opinion, the constant attacks on Wikipedia cheapen and degrade the quality of Conservapedia. A true, factual encyclopedia shouldn't have to resort to attacks on its competition. The Webster's dictionary doesn't contain entries slandering Random House or claiming it to be inferior. If Conservapedia wants to attract an actual academic audience, and not just jaded Conservative activists or Liberal trolls, it needs to take an academic stance, which is to say, no more Wikipedia digs. [[Adam 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]
By the way, my "liberal is just a word" line was to show that some people express an exaggerated importance on the word Liberal, and seem to forget what it actually means. Many people equate "Liberals" with some great enemy to be defeated, but what I am trying to say is that Liberals and Conservatives are just two opposing political viewpoints, nothing more. [[Adam 23:45, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]
From that position, you could say that patriotism and terrorism are "just two opposing political viewpoints".--JonathanDrain 10:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
And, in a sense, they are. What if America were overtaken by a terribly oppressive totalitarian government? Most Americans today would not stand for such a thing, and would openly revolt against such a change. To the established totalitarian regime, they are terrorists that threaten national stability, but to the people, they are freedom-fighters trying to restore the glory of a nation. So, if patriotism becomes violent, the way terrorism is, then are the two really distinguishable? Adam 10:50, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that, during the American Revolution, soldiers of the Continental Army, or any irregulars supporting the same, murdered innocent women or children? Or--are you saying that you consider America to have already been taken over by "an oppressive totalitarian government"? Your position makes zero sense.--TerryHTalk 14:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Adam, terrorism to overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian regime, for the sake of establishing or re-establishing freedom/Democracy, is one thing. Terrorism, conducted in and for the installation of yet another oppressive, totalitarian, religious theocracy, is just terrorism, criminal activity. You cannot attach the appellation "freedom fighter(s)" to religious fanatics who seek neither freedom or religious pluralism. That is a logical fallacy, the same as calling people "suicide bombers" when in point of fact they are Homicide Bombers. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

To revert back to the original point of this section, I typed in deceit at wikipedia and it redirected my to a page for the word "lie", not to an album. If you type in www.wikipedia.org/deceit (you will be redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit) you are also taken to the page for the word "lie." So I don't know if it is entirely accurate to say that the wikipedia page for deceit just talks about an album. --UPOD 15:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Sher Zieve

Sher Zieve, an important conservative journalist, does not have any article in Wikipedia.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:23, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

CP article about Sher Zieve had more that 120 visits in less that 24 hours!
Very nice, Joaquin!!!! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:41, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
CP's "Sher Zieve" is currently in Google, number 30 among 108,000 articles. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:35, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In 6 days of living this page has been accessed 1,177 times. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:32, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Ehh...

Being a conservative sort of guy from Ireland, I'm not sure that this website is balanced towards non US conservatives?

Also, what is with all this sabre rattling on the front page? Shouldn't we concentrate on promoting our message rather than slandering the other side? All this association of deceit with Liberal makes this place look like a parody of itself.

Anyway, nice to be here, but could someone help me out, where I have to go before I'm allowed edit articles etc. Smith090 19:11, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I object to your use of the word slander. Truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel or slander.--TerryHTalk 19:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Lets not take what I said literally; Its a figure of speech.

What I meant was (And I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant) that promoting our own crop might actually achieve more than saying the neighbours crop isn't very good. Smith090 19:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

  • What he meant was, Terry, is that he is yet another deceitful Liberal. The user is a sock of another, merely here to disrupt and show their ignorance. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:09, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Video

I've noticed that a comment about the Huckabee/ Paul debate is on the front page. Here is a link to the video and transcript of the clash, just in case you want to know what National Review was writing about. Thanks, --Tash 20:15, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed that the transcript on the link i posted, is very primitive and may be misleading. Although its minor, you may want to change the front page from "video and transcript" to just say "video". Thanks,--Tash 22:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Will do. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

re Thanks Aschlafy. --Tash 19:03, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Question regarding Conservapedia article search engine rankings

I noticed today that Conservapedia has a Google ranking of #5 for a very popular internet search. I also found one Conservapedia article that is ranked #1 by Google. Does anyone know of any Conservapedia articles that are ranked in the top 5 by Google? I ask this question because I read that 70% of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engines and 50% of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google.[3] Conservative 16:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Our ranking for "equiproportional marginal benefit" is #1 on Google. However, Wikipedia is far more dependent on the search engines than we are. We have a higher percentage of users who come to our site first for information than Wikipedia does. In Christ,--Aschlafly 18:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Our liberal style is #7 on Google rankings. Our Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels, searchable as "greatest conservative novels", is #1.--Aschlafly 19:19, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Another #1 entry, out of over 1.6 million entries: search on Google the words "Harvard" "abortion" "study" and you find Harvard abortion study.--Aschlafly 19:43, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

APEC Greenhouse Gas agreement

This may be good news or bad news depending on your point of view on global warming, but an interesting development nevertheless. Worthy of the front page?

APEC agrees to cut emissions—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferret (talk)

Not sure if it is worth to be cover on the front page. Apparently the Sydney Declaration includes aspirational goals to cut emissions, as well as binding regional targets. Scientist Richard Lindzen called such targets "the most immoral thing you could do", because it would keep billions from access to electricity. Also it implicitly suggests that global warming does actually exists, or at least that humans are contributing to it, while conclusions of global-warming alarmists are said to become more and more ridiculous. Order 22:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
So, from one perspective at least, today we have several major countries signing up for the "most immoral thing you could do". If that isn't worthy of the front page, what is? My point is, whether we think it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a pretty major development. Ferret 22:45, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal

Sir or Madam, Wikipedia does appear to have a very comprehensive page on "liberal." Although it redirects to "Liberalism," it has an extensive article series on types of liberalism, and even an article on US Liberalism. We may disagree with its POV but it does exist, eh?-RichardParker 11:06, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Precisely. And surely it doesn't require too much mental effort to infer that a liberal is one who supports liberalism in one or other of its forms. Pachyderm 11:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Right. So I'd support taking down the latest News thing. I don't want this site to look dumb, as I fear that story would cause :-P.-RichardParker 11:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke? especially when in Conservapedia searching for liberalism reroutes one to the article liberal, and that article... Lets not even go there. Mayby it takes an conservative not to see the connection between liberalism and an liberal. WillM 13:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Liberal" has nearly seven times as many sites in a Google search as "liberalism" does. "Liberalism" is rarely heard in common discourse.
Wikipedia isn't fooling conservatives by its redirect ... and neither are you. In Christ,--Aschlafly 13:41, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait - but it's not like Wikipedia is hiding the article on liberal - I mean all the information about liberals is in liberalism. I don't think Wikipedia is trying to fool anyone by its redirects.--Iduan 16:01, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Fooling conservatives? so you are really saying that conservatives reading Wikipedia don't have the intellectual capacity to see the connection between liberalism and an liberal. Well, can't even imagine in what trouble they are in here, when they search for liberalism and get all confused when they end up to the liberal article, good thing tho that your google research shows that undoubtly happens less often. WillM 13:57, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly,
You appear to have assumed that I was speaking in bad faith. Incorrect. I was trying to help you. Please assume good faith in the future. Although I still think your "error" in Wikipedia is a distinction without a difference, you are entitled to keep it there, I suppose (free country). Please do not conflate my constructive criticism with the above user, by the way. Cheers.-RichardParker 14:11, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

The user above would like to point out that, even tho the user now above me claims so, im not speaking in bad faith, just saying things bit more direct, no politcal correctnes which i hear is frowned up on here. WillM 14:17, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I don't care whether it is "bad faith" or liberal bias that is so ingrained that it is done instinctively. The result is the same. Look up the important term "liberal" and find no entry for that term on Wikipedia. Instead, in a typically biased way at Wikipedia, it redirects the user to a different term with a different meaning. Wikipedia pulls the same stunt for "deceit". In Christ,--Aschlafly 16:06, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
It's neither bad faith nor liberal bias but common sense. Pachyderm 16:14, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Deceit seems to redirect to "Lie" on Wikipedia. So your above statement seems disingenuous, Aschlafly. If you, as a curious user, look up "deceit" you will be directed to a page that talks about the immorality of lying (section 4). Similarly, it seems you have no article on "Lie," Aschlafly, as you can see (or not see) here. What does that say about your site...? Please, you've got enough dirt on Wikipedia already, on legitimate counts. Don't invent others!-RichardParker 16:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
I've corrected your lack of an article on "lie," Aschlafly. May I quote you Matthew 7:3, "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?"-RichardParker 16:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
User:RichardParker, this is a high-quality site. If you enter another incorrect item like your redirection of "lie" to "deceit", then your account will be banned.
However, this has not been a complete waste. Your silly demand for an apology is being added to our growing list of liberal style. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
The situations are not comparable. Conservapedia, a young, new project did not have an article while Wikipedia had a misleading redirect. CalebRookwood 16:39, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Explain how redirecting "deceit" to "lie" is misleading. They're synonyms to any educated person.-RichardParker 16:44, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
<Says nothing> Pachyderm 16:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I was going to drop this, but you resorted to ad hominem attacks, calling me a liberal without even asking me about my personal views. And that made me angry. I don't know who you are but I would appreciate (1) an apology and (2) a chance to cooperate on an equal basis.-RichardParker 17:08, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Here's why Wikipedia's redirect is actually a form of deceit. Liberalism is a movement, a Liberal is a person. Concepts that Conservapedia has successfully illustrated like Liberal Bias, Liberal Style, and so called Liberal Intellectualism are censored on Wikipedia both because there is no article about what a liberal is, and also because they would be treated as "original research" despite the fact that they are true. SSchultz 17:37, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism is a movement, a Liberal is a person who is a follower or member or proponent of that movement and its beliefs. It. Really. Isn't. That. Difficult. A. Concept. For. Anyone. Of. Normal. Intelligence. To. Grasp. Pachyderm 17:44, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Pachyderm, "liberalism" is an obscure term and there is no "liberalism movement." Go ask any liberal if he believes in liberalism, and watch his puzzled response. Do you believe in liberalism??? In Christ,--Aschlafly 18:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

All I will say is, "Aschlafly, you make a lot of assumptions." Since I don't want to get blocked over such a silly issue, I will hold my tongue.-RichardParker 19:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Richard, we all know that liberals don't admit they are liberals. Not even Hillary Clinton admits she is a liberal. Apparently many liberals think they can be more persuasive by concealing their views. I admit that I'm a conservative. Why won't liberals admit who they are? It's part of the game, and liberals should not expect to get away with it here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I've disclosed my politics here. Also, Aschlafly adds another assumption! You know what happens when we assume.-RichardParker

You didn't persuade me, and I doubt you've persuaded anyone else here. But with that "disclosure" you could probably persuade some trusting visitors over at Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 19:35, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, if you look at my page, you'll notice that you haven't persuaded me, either. I've concluded that, using your logic, you too are a liberal. But I don't have to prove myself to you. Godspeed.-RichardParker 19:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
"Richard", as I've explained, this is a high-quality site. I don't believe a word you've said so far, and all you've done is waste my time. You're in violation of our rule against 90/10 talk. If you seek more attention, then I suggest you find it elsewhere. If you want your account to remain unblocked here, then I suggest you contribute edits of value, and soon. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:51, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Actually, he has, if counted correctly, a 18/9 talk/edit ratio. Order 20:59, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Before it all ends in a mudfight and name calling, let's summarize what we do know.

  • Wikipedia redirects "liberal" to "Liberalism"
  • The entry on "Liberalism" starts with a disclaimer that it only discusses a political ideology.
  • For other uses of the word "Liberal" it links to a disambiguation page.
  • The "Liberalism" article starts with an etymology of the word "liberal".
  • Wikipedia redirects Liberal Bias to "Media Bias"
  • For Liberal Hypocrisy Wikipedia brings you to a search page, and the 100% match is an article on the book "Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer.
  • For Liberal Intellectualism Wikipedia directs you to a search page, with as 100% match is "Anti-Intellectualism".
  • Wikipedia has no article on Liberal Style

Maybe we should agree where the shortcoming of Wikipedia lies. And maybe someone can say exactly why and where the article on "liberalism" fails to explain what a liberal is. Order 21:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Beats me dude :-) -RichardParker 21:30, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Order and Richard, I'll respond yet again, but I hope I find some substantive edits by you when I check on your contributions. Richard, I still don't believe a word you've said, and your edit to the marriage amendment deserved a "D". Your account is about to blocked in the absence of improvement.
In response to Order, do tell us where I can find the liberal support of gun control on its ridiculous entry for liberalism. Nowhere. If you still don't get the point then spend more time reading and less time talking on Conservapedia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:20, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Dude, I'm well within 90/10. But I'll write something else just to make sure. And your logic deserves something, but I don't know what letter grade. I hear you're the founder; nice to hear. But that's not carte blanche here, I hope. Have a nice night.-RichardParker 22:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Liberal support for gun control is mentioned on Wikipedia here. It's quite easy to find -- just search for "liberal" (which redirects to "liberalism"), then click on the "Modern liberalism in the United States" link at the top. - Borofkin2 23:37, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Maybe I should spend more time reading, but I did actually some reading when I compiled the above list. Correct me if any of the observations I made was incorrect. Order 00:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
That's a different entry. The point is that liberal support of gun control is not in an entry on liberal or even in the entry that it is redirected to, the silly term "liberalism" (which is not even a recognized term in the same sense as "liberal"). Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Under the heading "Contemporary Liberalism" it is explained that Liberalism in the US differences from the "Liberalism" in Europe and it links to "Modern liberalism", which redirects to "social liberalism". This page mentions gun control. Also the disambiguation page links to "Modern American Liberalism" and that has a list of positions supported by US Liberals. Do you think that WP should link straight away to this article when a person looks for "Liberal"?Order 00:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Not that I'm trying to stir up the pot since this whole argument is kind of silly, but I notice that Christian is redirected to Christianity on this site. I'm not sure how that's different from Wikipedia's "liberal" redirecting to "liberalism". Just my admittedly worthless observation.--Conservateur 22:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

This has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with the English language. I am shocked that no one else has pointed out that Conservative redirects Conservatism, Fascist redirects to Fascism, Democrat redirects to a disambiguation page with links to "Democracy" (as well as the political parties), and so on. This is due to the fact that there is little distinction between these topics; if they were separate articles, they'd either repeat each other, or else one article would be dreadfully short ("A liberal is someone who holds to the tenets of liberalism; see liberalism). As a style issue, Wikipedia encourages the placement of the content to be about the ideology, rather than the holder of the ideology, so liberalism got the nod in this case. It could just as easily have been decided the other way, with liberalism a redirect to liberal, and this used as evidence of some coverup of the existence of liberalism. (Note that the reverse is often done for specific offices- hence President of the United States, not Presidency. But that's not an ideology.) QuietIsomorph 23:38, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

One problem, "liberalism" doesn't mean the same thing as "liberal". Worse, "liberalism" is not even a widely recognized term. Wikipedia obscures and confuses with this redirect, just as other liberals do when confronted with the term "liberal". Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
If liberalism doesn't mean the same thing as liberal - why do we have liberalism redirect to liberal?--IDuan
Interestingly, though WP's liberal page is a redirect it does have a talk page that seems to indicate that the term was being misunderstood for the simple fact that it was over used. Aschlafly, you seem to have the desire to define liberal your way, as this is your site, it follows that that is what is going to happen. I do not know why you bother to defend what is yours, by rights. Let them rant. Just my 2¢. Samwell 00:17, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
We all know that CP and WP have different biases, so that is hardly news. What Andy refers to is that the WP entry tries to conceal an important aspect of "liberal" by redirecting to "Liberalism". If that would be the case, it would indeed be a serious omission. We already established that Andy considers "support of gun control" essential to "liberal", which isn't mentioned in the "Liberalism" entry. Are there more aspects to "liberal" that are not covered by "Liberalism"? Order 00:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Rather than a demonstration of deceit, it's more a demonstration of WP's "world view" approach. Gun control is a significant aspect of liberal ideology in the US (where it is a contentious issue), and so rightly sits in the liberal article on CP. Outside of the US, certainly in the countries I am familiar with (UK and Australia), gun control is not a particularly contentious issue. In those countries, counting it as a signficant aspect of liberal ideology would seem peculiar. So in WP's "world view" article, gun control wouldn't get a mention, whereas in the US Liberalism article it does. In short, both CP's and WP's articles are appropriate for their intended audiences. Ferret 03:30, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools