Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

The Definition of Conservative

There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is. --Kirby 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the current method of insta-banning anyone for 5 years for any edit that isn't evangelically conservative is working very well, actually.--Colbertnation2 19:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Diversity of Thought

Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --Truth is bipartisan 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --Truth is bipartisan 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will not consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--TerryH 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). Airdish 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 22=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? -- Rob PommerTALK 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's On Liberty: 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

It shouldn't

Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are postmodernistic in their thinking. Postmodernism asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous rhetorical question by Pontius Pilate.--TerryH 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. JoshuaZ 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are modernistic, which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "science" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. Atheists are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--TerryH 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). JoshuaZ 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Terry, I don't for the life of me understand how you can connect modernism, postmodernism, etc., with political positioning. There is a wide range of political views associated with either. Modernism has to include both Marx and Jefferson, for example. --Andy 13:04, 17 November 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe exactly the same things that you believe is small. - User: Edward. (I might not have formatted this properly, I apologise).

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." Dpbsmith 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --BenjaminS 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim not to have a bias and then take one anyway. --<<-David R->> 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative bias and conservative flavour. One can't have bias and be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. Tsumetai 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One can't be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half nonfactual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues or else we will abandon factuality. --BenjaminS 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. McTavidge 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Neither BenjaminS nor I have ever claimed a monopoly on truth. Anyone can discover the truth for himself. The problem is that liberals have a problem with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" (John Kenneth Galbraith)--TerryH 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. McTavidge 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark. I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when in reality the world is contrary, one fact always in balance with a contrary fact. The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.--Punky 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. Tsumetai 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--Aschlafly 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--TheTruth 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be conservative. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --TimSvendsen 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. Two by two 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--jp 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals will not recognise that there is such a thing as the truth and righteousness. They are embroiled in their own pseudo-intellectual activities, such as the vain search for moral relativism. Conservapedia is neutral to the facts, as it should be. We present the facts, people make up their own minds then. Liberals insist on compensating for something or someone in order to try and give a balanced viewpoint when the truth is that sometimes God made some horrible, evil people, and we should be pointing that out, not pointing out that for example Hitler was good with dogs and therefore had a nice side. Its ridiculous. Boru 12:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

How is it even possible for a conservative website to be without bias? By adding a viewpoint, you are already inserting bias. Many of you claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, (which it may), but by choosing to make a site centered around a viewpoint (which everyone knows this site is) bias is already present. I am willing to accept the fact that Conservapedia has a bias, and I think once that is acknowledged, this site can become far more productive. All I ask is that you be up front about it. Rbpolsen 16:38, 20 November 2008 (EST)

It should

Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--ChrisF

I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--Sub Zenyth 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Counter Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what propaganda is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--TerryH 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--Donalbain 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and you are wrong. Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. That's not a part of the definition at all. What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
Propaganda, n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [1]
Propaganda. Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [2]
..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any idea, fact, rumor, or lie, or a wider body of same, which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance or hinder any given cause." So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--Sub Zenyth 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.
Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will always face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must face the fact that we are stating facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves no favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to establish the facts, and then present them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--TerryH 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --Knowthetruth 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. Dpbsmith 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)
DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What fact do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--TerryH 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:
3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.
Is that fair? Dpbsmith 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Let me rephrase myself: I have not found any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has yet adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.
The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?
I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some particular proponent of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the Bible itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.
For example, a biography of Ayn Rand would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with Nathaniel Branden, the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.
But what does that show, other than that Objectivism demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether God existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.
But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the globe is warming, that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that will befall the world--but "man-made injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" is not one of them.
In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--TerryH 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)
TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly the most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions may be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.
Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--ChrisF
Let us continue these discussions here and here.--TerryH 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

As a non-conservative, I have to say that as it stands, this website has absolutely no credibility outside conservative/fundamentalist circles. Your articles, particularly science issues, and on things like evolution, abortion, and homosexuality read more like a fred phelps handout or a chick tract than a dictionary. If your guys goal is to create an insular, self congratulating source of propaganda, you've succeeded. If your goal was to make an 'unbiased' version of wikipedia, you've merely gone in the exact opposite direction. I wish you all luck. -s

I think religious bias is something to be worried about. For example, the article on Salvation shows only one facet of Salvation (e.g. the protestant version of the satisfaction theory) but the admins say it is true and will not let it be changed. Of course, this alienates Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians. Also, it makes the conservapedia an unreliable source for students writing papers on the history of theology.--Mattk 16:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

A story about the Christian Science Monitor

A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.
One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a huge obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'
I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. But it did not say that she had died. Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'
It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the Christian Science Monitor in that regard. (The Monitor fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) Dpbsmith 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

A very perceptive comment. --Ed Poor 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait, what?

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site didn't have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --Phist

It could just not have a liberal bias. --Monotreme 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)
After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... Not gonna sign this 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is greatly overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. Phist
(Yes, it was a joke). Dpbsmith 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views benmatthews

Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. CEinhorn 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Question, why are you going to use Christian information (Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!) to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter? And by the way, if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from? (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older. All information is biased, because history is written by the winners, and Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--Punky 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. CEinhorn 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta

i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--Punky 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to Christianity) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. McTavidge 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--Punky 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--jp 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, yes. Bias, no.

I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. Everwill 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Will someone please explain

How does the term "conservative" automatically mean fair and balanced AND the truth?


Perhaps the name should be objectivepedia, if one were wanting to have an un-biased, truthful, and accurate reference tool.

Radical Idea : Could change internet traffic forever!

Let's rename Conservapedia to Encyclopedia Politica or Politipedia or something that al least sounds neutral. --TomRobinson 13:57, 7 June 2010 (EDT)


See also