Conservapedia talk:Conservative point of view (CPOV)
Good stuff.--JamesWilson 19:01, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
- I'm interested to see what becomes of this. Ed Poor told me Conservapedia describes all points of view, and I took that to mean that a Conservative point of view is by no means the standard. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I misinterpreted someone.
- Nevertheless, this will make it easier for me decide on which tone to use while editing.--CamilleT 23:54, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative values
The intro to Conservative values linked from this page reads,
- conservative values are superb in defending against obesity
Being we're discussing a core content policy here, I would imagine that would drive more traffic to that page. Rob Smith 17:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
CPOV = NPOV
Well, and what's the difference between a Christian/Conservative POV and a neutral one? The Existence of God is a fact and it's also a fact that it's our Christian God. The WP e.g. denies god so their self-called "NPOV" is and atheistic POV. So the "CPOV" is identical with NPOV and I edit in NPOV. World-wide lexikons must be neutral and telling the truth, not like WP which is full of lies and rubbish. --Elessar (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2015 (EDT)
"All articles must follow it"
Maybe I'm being too particular, but there is a sweeping generality in here which is well intentioned and generally good, but may be a little bit of a stretch. This says that "all editors and articles must follow [CPOV]" I obviously agree that all articles touching political principals and concepts should, but there are some articles which have no liberal/conservative controversy. For example, Cookie does not really need to speak from any political POV. To say that cookies are evil and should be banned because they make people fat would be liberal, but how do you write this in a conservative point of view? Just say "Everything in moderation"? What about Computer? It could be skewed to say that they can be used for liberal and evil purposes, and therefore are bad, but the same could be said about a screwdriver (it can tighten/loosen screws, or stab people). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't make such a sweeping declaration that it sounds like everything must be deliberately slanted to a CPOV, but a CPOV should be used for anywhere it is relevant. I'm not sure how best to word this. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:21, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
- Easy. You just modify the mainspace to say "All controversial articles must follow it," or "All articles dealing with a social, political, religious, economic or ideological topic must follow it," or somesuch. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:26, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
- Or "All controversial articles dealing with a social, political, religious, economic or ideological topic are encouraged to follow it," or "strongly encouraged to follow it." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:33, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
- "controversial" works for me, though if you want to over-think it, liberals like to pretend that their new, alternative way of looking at something is the only reasonable, unchallenged and non-controversial way of looking at it. Naming categories specifically is more absolute and non-negotiable, which seems like a good thing for a policy. However, there may still be edge cases which don't specifically fall into those categories. Still, that's much better than it is now, and probably good enough. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:38, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
- 90sguy, Yes, no, and maybe. The basic idea is to encourage writers to Be Bold and create content. A lot of content can sometimes be flipped to mean the opposite with one word or one edit. We don't want to frighten off new users, and use the heavy hand of deletion and blocking. By "strongly encouraging" them you can guide them to discussion and consensus.
- I'd recommend using this as a Guideline and not a Policy, as yet, until it's tested out and tweaked. Whatsmore, for this guideline to work Admins have to pay closer attention to the Categorization process. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:45, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
- Either is fine with me, since this is really just expounding on the already existing policy. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree about categories. They are improving, but still badly broken in certain ways. If I run a recursive category tree page listing, I can really see some problems. For example, if I check Category:Christianity I get everything from foods to weapons. While both are mentioned in the Bible, which may be where these are coming from in the tree, Christianity is not a subset of foods or weapons, nor is it the other way around. We really need to pay more attention to that. By adding a page to a category, you are saying that this specific page is a smaller part of this category, and it entirely fits inside of this category with almost no overlap. This is not what many of our pages are currently doing. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
An aside
There is a tremendous opportunity now, with the total complete collapse of mainstream media credibility regarding sourcing. I doubt very much if WP is questioning if NYT or CNN are viable sources that meet their own standards for inclusions. By encouraging content creators right now, CP Admins could have tremendous power over what and who is "reputable, scholarly or mainstream" source, and what is "marginal, fringe, or extreme" (which describe MSNBC & CNN quite accurately). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:56, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Tentative or accepted?
Should we rip down the header that says, It is not official.... Please regard it as tentative and formative. ?
Yes
- RobSLive Free or Die 00:36, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
- --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:57, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
No
I was desyopped for making this proposal
14 years ago I was desysopped for creating this proposal in user space. Since that time, the most hideous and outrageous personal attacks are regularly created in user space, Essay space, and Mainspace by the same Senior Admin who conspired in my desysopping. (That was never the case before my desyopping when we actually had a community. It began when in the Conservapedia "meritocracy", a Senior Admin was rewarded for violating the few rules mandating civility that Conservapedia had.)
Since it's been moved to the Mainspace as a proposal, it has not advanced. It's time to end the ambiguity and delete the proposal. RobSRecovering Republican 21:56, December 30, 2025 (EST)