User:Human/Classic Conservapedia
From Conservapedia
Contents |
Definition
What I call Classic Conservapedia are the articles and topics that are dearest and nearest to Our Father Mr. Schlafly's heart, namely:
- Abortion, or, at least, opposition to it
- Young Earth Creationism
- Liberals, or at least, really, really hating them
- Being Different from Wikipedia (as an excuse for any of the above)
- Conservative politics, a distant afterthought, ironically, and which I would fairly expect here - for example, Affirmative action strongly presents the right wing point of view.
As such, there are a core of articles on this "encyclopedia" that are incredibly one-sided, usually locked to editing by non-sysops, and usually poorly written. Certain articles (deceit - older/current - for example) outside this core have for one reason or another picked up a heavy taint. This is, after all, Andy Schlafly's blog, and he feels free to let his fingers dance upon the keyboard as his imagination and will strikes him.
The rest of the effort is basically camouflage, to make it look like an encyclopedia.
I will here list any articles, as I come across them from ths point forward, which I consider to be Classical Conservapedia. Below in a subsection will be those I consider permanently (i.e., uneditable to remove the weirdness) damaged. Feel free to comment on this page's discussion page.
Classical Conservapedia
Pages that will always be key strongholds
(In general, this is a good place to start looking)
- Abortion
- Andrew_Schlafly (hmmm, vanity bio page is locked by himself)
- Anita_Bryant
- Breast cancer
- Conservative
- Date of Creation
- Evolution
- Global warming
- Liberal
- Phyllis_Schlafly
- Pseudoscience
Quotes defining the black and white world divide
- "In Hamilton, you claimed that taxes were beneficial to the United States. That's liberal opinion.--Aschlafly 09:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)" [1]
- "Liberal Opinion stated as fact
We don't state liberal opinion as fact here. ColinR inserted, "The fact that radiotelescopes can detect the light of stars billions of light years away proves that the universe is billions of years old, as the light must have left those stars that long ago to reach us now travelling at the speed of light."
No credible, unbiased scientist would claim that "proves" billions of years old, and no citation was given for it. That's a liberal opinion and should be stated as such, if stated at all. There are many reasons why that falls short of a "proof".--Aschlafly 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)"[2]
Permanent Taint
- Deceit
- Ice Age has also been dumbassed beyond belief (4/28/07).
- Astronomy is now under attack - and protection to maintain a [massive YEC screed]. 5/3/07
- Geologic system
Special cases
See this discussion about the Scientific Revolution.
- Further note, I guess it's not that special. Everything Roger touches turns to garbage until he loses interest in it. His grip of science in general is, well, tenuous at best.
Here we finally get the target audience for articles defined:
"Yes, describe every concept in terms a 9-year-old child could understand. Terms like clades are not in the typical child's vocabulary. The idea that two Great Danes have puppies which grow up to look like them, instead of laying eggs which turn into turtles or chickens, is something children can understand. --Ed Poor 07:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)"[3]
