Talk:Main Page/archive4

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Citations on the main page

Hi, I'm not a Christian or an American, but I do believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I'd like you to get the recognition you deserve.

According to your commandments, everything on this site "must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite [...] your sources". Your main page states "This site is growing rapidly". Citations that could be included for this statement are a link to Special:Statistics, and perhaps a link to Alexia traffic statistics - HomoErectus 17:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

"No" to both because "growth" implies a (positive) change over time.
The statistics page gives us absolute numbers, so you'd have to start compiling a table with snapshots of fixed intervals to actually calculate "growth". Then there would be the question (among other things) what "rapidly" means.
Alexa shows that, at one point, the site really had a major traffic spike, but it's a thing of the past and doesn't give any information about site growth, just about popularity over time. Then you should keep in mind that much of that traffic spike came from non-contributors and vandals. Said vandals certainly made the site grow, but there is the question of quality.
Add to that the following fact: You have to be registered to contribute, and registration has been disabled for a few days now (unless that changed recently). Ah, I see it's open again!
In short, this site is not growing "rapidly". (Just like the "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is not correct.) Especially not right now, in a time when quite a few people either focus on existing articles (with several hundreds of them being EXTREMELY short stubs) or just plain leave (or get banned). --Sid 3050 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like Conservapedia to get the recognition it deserves. But to do this, it should always cite its sources. Alexia being a very relevant and accurate one - HomoErectus 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Alexa is not really accurate. It's the closest we can get with little effort, and it's a reasonably good indicator, but I wouldn't call it "accurate". But let's assume that Alexa is accurate. Some higher-ups here certainly see it as such, so sure. I'll also assume that you're not being sarcastic (I had to disable my sarcasm sensors because some people here are actually serious about many things that I would've classified as sarcasm). Then that graph tells me... what exactly? That (1) Conservapedia is doing badly when you compare it to Wikipedia or (2) that Conservapedia is way past its peak and is horribly close to rank 100.000 again, thus doing badly even when compared to itself?
Trust me, Conservapedia is getting the recognition it deserves. Little to none, with most links to the site basically saying "Click here if you need a quick laugh" (they put it nicer, but that's the basic message). --Sid 3050 18:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Lol, I like your sarcasm sensors comment, and - as godfearing of the blocker admins I am - I'm gonna say you're are the only infallible one round here HomoErectus 04:34, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Jesus, how many redlinks does this place have on crucial religious topics? HomoErectus 04:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Bullies and "Trustworthy"

Which of the editors here made this statement regarding Wikipedia to Scripps: "There are no real principles to guide it, and so bullies end up dominating it."???

Seriously...there's no bullying here? Not in the Scopes trial article (locked because some unnamed party couldn't handle irrelevant material being removed by rational contributors)?!?

Not in the locked Homosexuality article (completely ignorant, biased, bigoted, and just plain wrong on SO many levels)???

Or the locked Abortion, which is only half-right from the very first sentence???

What about the locked George W Bush? NO MENTION of him losing the popular vote in 2000 by millions of votes?? And WHY is his faith mentioned under "Foreign Policy"?

For such a young site which claims a very noble calling, there is a whole lot of "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!"

Someone needs to get past their own ego...unless and until there is fair and equal opportunity for all contributors to edit pages (with factual information, of course - not the rampant opinion and conjecture already in existence), this site will remain nothing more than what it is now: A vanity page for a select few privileged individuals to broadcast inappropriate, incorrect, and often discriminatory personal views while attempting to reflect an air of supremacy over other, similar sites whose prevailing views just so happen to differ.PKBear 17:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to agree that certain pages need to be locked. There are a lot of intelligent knowledgeable people who choose to assert their views and knowledge as vandalism. Certain contentious pages have since been locked. The best option is for a few sound liberal voices to attain a presence here that results in them being conferred Sysop status, so that they may be able to bring balance to these articles. In the mean time, we have to wait because of rampant vandalism. Not that I'm defending the Sysops, but I respect their position. --TrueGrit 10:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Any thoughts on making Conservipedia multilingual? - HomoErectus 17:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummm...pretty sure that goes against the "American language"-only policy. Don't you know that multilingualism contributes to the illegal immigration scourge!PKBear 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought potty/ was supposed to be banned?Saved 18:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have more sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.Conservative 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Very true, Conservative. I propose this ammendment to the commandments: "Everything you post must be verifiable by means of citation and source." --<<-David R->> 18:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I assumed this is already covered by "Always cite and give credit to your sources". Like, isn't that exactly what you two want? --Sid 3050 19:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, not exactly, Sid. That commandment requires users to cite sources when they use them. It does not require that you provide any such sources. We want to make citations mandatory. --<<-David R->> 19:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
"Verifiable" + "always cite" = "always provide citations" in my eyes. Sure, it would be nice to make it an explicit rule, but it's just one of the many things that should be changed on the rule page. You have my "Do it!" vote, but I personally kinda see it already. *shrugs* --Sid 3050 19:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Encyclopedia the right word?

while some pages attempt to mimic an encyclopedia, you have the heavy editoral comment on the front page "today's liberal falsehood" - something that an encyclopedia would never have. --Cgday 05:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The aformentioned section is also strangely worded. This falsehood was taught throughout the 1970s to schoolchildren nationwide, despite parental objections. makes it sound like the statement is untrue. But I have a slightly different question.
Why are we attacking liberals on our website? I've never really understood this. This is supposed to be a pro-Conservative site, not an anti-liberal site. Could someone please clear this up for me? GofG ||| Talk 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe Andy has approached this project with the goal of redressing the perceived wrongs he experienced on Wikipedia. He denounces Wikipedia for liberal bias, but he, along with a few other editors, write articles whose conservative bias far exceeds the liberal bias of Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia encourages the writing of neutral articles, some articles do exhibit liberal bias. However I have looked up a number of things on Wikipedia over the years, mostly uncontroversial articles, and I think they are pretty good and also neutral. Based on this, I think that only a small percentage of Wikipedia articles contain bias.

Liberal bias is not a part of the official policy at Wikipedia. Conservative bias, even more than that YEC bias, is definitely the policy at Conservapedia. In my opinion Andy should either stop criticizing Wikipedia for liberal bias since conservative bias is so prevalent here, or strive for neutrality in Conservapedia articles.

Conservapedia, at this time, is not an encyclopedia but merely a collection of editorial articles. Andy doesn’t seem to appreciate that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of factually accurate, non-opinionated articles.

Unless Andy comes to realize that factual accuracy is the primary quality of an encyclopedia, Conservapedia is not likely to be taken seriously by more than small group of far right YEC conservatives.

The future success of Conservapedia is largely dependant on Andy’s understanding of the differences between what editorial articles are, and what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. I think he needs to take off his attorney hat and put on the hat of a scholar. Land Dweller 15:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


The claim on the main page about Blinder “abandoning free trade” is one he has explicitly rejected, and it should, therefore, be removed from the main page (I’ve also added this information to the entry on him).--Reginod 16:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank God in High Heaven

I have been thinking of starting a site like this myself, so I was delighted when a friend forwarded me the link. This site is a service to mankind. Thanks much!! Let me ask you, can I copy over articles (which were long since obliterated by the resident liberal bias) from Wikipedia's history? I speaking particularly of sourced articles which I personally wrote? Everwill 06:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, you cannot. The assumption is that Wikipedia's articles are copyrighted. But that's ok, as far as we're concerned. We can still write top-quality articles from the ground up, with everything as original as possible. So, pick a subject, lay your source material on your desk, and have fun writing. Karajou 13:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Everwill, if they're articles you wrote, of course you can. There's no copyright on Wiki articles, by the way, Karajou, but the editors and sysops will delete straight copy-jobs unless you wrote them yourself. Please try to keep an NPOV and good luck.-AmesGyo! 13:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia "whines"

It is interesting that Conservapedia would choose to frame that piece of news using the word "whines". I would suggest that, if Conservapedia wishes to become a reputable source, the Sysops ensure that charged words are avoided. I recommend changing "whines" to "complains". But, that's just my objective observation. --TrueGrit 09:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

    • I suggest "Wikipedia's cowardly crowd of cavilling, craven, contumelious Commie-lovers mewled and puked in their nurses arms, as they sniveled..." --Strongman 10:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I like it, you'd just have to find a way to build in "liberal" and "biased" somewhere... --Sid 3050 10:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
The front page is a joke. No matter how much work is put into the articles, the unencyclopedic tone on the front page ruins things. --Sid 3050 10:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Main page disgust

Originally posted on Aschlafly's talk page

Sir, I comment on the statements made on the main page of this site:

Tip to Brits: don't make American President Jimmy Carter's mistake of 1979 and fail to protect your embassy.

The exploitation of my country men and woman's plight for cheap political points is exactly what the Iranians are doing. They, however, managed to do it without being patronizing and condescending. I ask that you consider the effects before putting such reprensible comments on the main page again. Nematocyte 12:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. this style of editorializing is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. However the british are not welcome here as evidenced by the 'merican spelling only policy.12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
British people sure are annonying.Jaques 13:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Apparently I was, because Aschlafly accused be of being policitally motivated. Despite the fact that I'm a conservative, and about 10000 miles away from his national politics. Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he? Nematocyte 07:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools