Talk:Main Page/archive13

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this site a joke?

Seriously how can you call an encyclopedia "trustworthy" and "educational" when it's views are slanted completley to one sided and it's information dictated by a sole group of unidentified poeople. This is like something out of 1984. So is this actually suposed to be serious.

Why is this site called conservapedia. It should be renamed Christapedia because it's views are christian not conservative. Any real conservative believes in freedom of religion so the information they distribute from a conservative stand point should not be biased towards any one religion like your homosexuality article clearly is.

LA Times article: A conservative's answer to Wikipedia

The article by Stephanie Simon is online here. Overall, I couldn't really fault it: her treatment of our failings is at least fair and not presented as mockery, and our detractors are painted for what they are: left wing vandals aiming to stifle free-speech. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Another triumph for us, Fox! It seems that even a liberal reporter wasn't fooled by vandals clothing themselves in supposedly high-minded purpose, eh? At last a major article, from a major and left of center paper, who actually got it mostly right! Congratulations, Andy! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, agreed :) And well done to all contributors who have been working hard to improve the content despite the distractions of the vandals. I've been watching the LA Times site like a hawk since Friday to see how the article turned out, and I think that you can all give yourselves a well-deserved pat on the back. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:32, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it is a fair article. I suspected (and hoped) that the vandals would shoot themselves in the foot by admitting to what they did. I'm glad that's what happened. Philip J. Rayment 06:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Incidentally, could a sysop dip into the George W. Bush article and alter "Exxon Mobile" to "Exxon Mobil" :D File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Done. ~ SharonTalk 08:13, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

That helped alot. Hey Tk man you were mentioned! How did they fine you or did they email you? I alsoo know the 15 year old girl who was mentioned at the end of the article. I was in her class. :) --Will N. 10:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

The L.A. Times article is about as fair as one can expect from a hardcore left-wing newspaper. Although the article is about Conservapedia, the author missed the opportunity to report some of the serious problems associated with Wikipedia. I have been a long time editor over there and have gotten sick of the constant bickering in order to add or modify a new or existing article information which is truthful and verifiable. At Wiki, there are some of the most blatant attempts to maintain a left wing bias that I've ever seen. I spent so much time on the Discussion page of an article that by the time I was able to get consensus to add information, I was simply exhausted and lost all enthusiasm to continue editing. I know many people who have also gotten sick of the absurdity of dealing with the constant bickering on Wiki and have moved on from doing any editing on that site. Conservapedia is a breath of fresh air where there is little tolerance for information that is not truthful and not verifiable. And, the Administrators here are a great deal more effective than those found on other such sites. My compliments to all the editors here dedicated to making this site the best source for encyclopaedic information. Scorpio 11:27, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I am pleasantly surprised with this column. Bohdan 13:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
I thought the article was good, but I had stressed to her how important it was to me to convey my very strong feelings about Conservapedia's right to exist without constant harassment from vandalism, and only a couple of my comments were included in the story, and none of my thoughts against vandalism, so I am a bit disappointed. I thought it was nice she liked my re-write of Claude Monet - which has since been greatly added to and vastly improved by Joaquin Martinez - the article is terrific, kudos to Joaquin for his good work. And I recommend Joaquin's other works such as Painting Masterpieces as well - fantastic! It is nice being recognized, but I would have prefered her not to mention my pages on lemon and mango in the article, since there are so many other articles of more importance and interest that could have been highlighted. (Tasha D. Jones) --Taj 13:52, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Taj, thanks much for all your efforts, which are greatly appreciated. Thanks also for your email. This newspaper article is very informative and highly intelligent. We all have "thick skins" around here and we respect the freedom of the press. You did a fantastic job and should give yourself more credit than you do. We love you here.--Aschlafly 14:11, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Group hug :D File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
hehe... thanks for the group hug, Fox! :) and by the way, good job on reverting vandalisation today, you were quick! Andy, thank you for the kind words, and for the opportunity to participate in CP, I enjoy editing here. You are right, I do need to develop a thicker skin, I'm often told that I'm too sensitive, lol. I agree the newspaper article was good, and I hope the story will bring new editors here to contribute - I think I've seen an influx of new editors already! --Taj 14:19, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Talking about thick skin, I hope we can learn that not all the media says about us is gonna be bad. So keep up the good work of not letting the press get to us!--Will N. 14:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Whilst I agree she disapproves of the "vandalism," you seem to be missing (wilfully?) the fact that the article is overwhelmingly negative about Conservapedia itself.

For your consideration:

  • ...offering what Schlafly describes as fair, scholarly articles. Many have a distinctly religious-right perspective.
Nothing negative about that ... unless you have a bias against the religious perspective.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
The closing sentence is clearly intended to negate Schlafly's "fair & scholarly" assertion. She reinforces this negation with a description of CP's take on the Pleistocene Epoch - the "multiple lines of evidence" quote from CP is beautifully restrained mockery.
You seem to be inferring what you would like to be there. It isn't there.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • "We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts."
Schlafly is allowed to damn himself with his own words: facts are less important to him than his religious beliefs.
Your conclusion is a non sequitur, and does not follow from my statement.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."
Allowing CP to damn itself with its own words. Ms. Simon knows full well that the majority of her readership would be appalled at such an definition. Childlike? Submissive? One can only imagine how much coffee was spluttered over breakfast tables across the nation.
Do tell us how much coffee was spilled ... in your imagination.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."
Possibly my favourite bit. With deepest apologies to whoever planted it, a prank statement presented as approved CP material. And no-one posting above spotted it - sometimes I wonder how you all manage to put your trousers on without killing yourselves.
Ah, your spelling of "favorite" gives you away. Not an American, and perhaps a Bush-hater? Why didn't you just say at the beginning that you dislike conservatives, if that's case???--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
His nationality has exactly what to do with it? He's clearly right about the quote being planted and missed. Murray 16:44, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
He doesn't disclose his political bias, which underlie his illogical remarks. I infer that he's a Bush-hater, as many non-Americans are. He should disclose his viewpoint if he wants to be taken seriously.--Aschlafly 16:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
  • [CP's critics] worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion. They're also concerned that children who stumble onto the site will assume everything in it is authoritative.
"material presented as fact" = non-factual. She does nothing to contradict this concern about material in the articles in question and the following five paragraphs reinforce it. Many would read this as implicit agreement with your critics.
Again, you speak in non sequiturs. Your equals sign is illogical.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting — or even mainstream — views.
The "or even mainstream" phrase is the clincher: CP as part of the radical fringe.
Ah, you turn to namecalling in desperation here.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Schlafly calls the armchair psychology "borderline in acceptability" for his site, but he defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective."
The "armchair psychology" phrase is mildly caustic, but the selected Schlafly quote is intended to make him look ridiculous. A "bias-free piece" would have no preferred ideological perspective.
Oh right, like Wikipedia? You'll find many who agree with you there, I'm sure. Too bad it's 6 times more liberal than the American public.
  • ...a few [articles] showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution. (It was the last line in the entry, after a lengthy discussion about which marsupials Noah may have brought aboard his ark.)
Gentle mockery re. Noah and the attention to which CP gives dissenting views.
  • In other cases, a glance at the entry's history — which shows editing over time — makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate.
Straighforward criticism of administrative policy.
  • But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us."
A dramatic and emotive closing line. Whilst its interpretation is up for grabs, I have serious doubts about whether it is intended to portray a rational response to the "vandalism" CP has experienced. Given the overall tone of the article, it could easily (and is probably intended) to be read as a somewhat hysterical overreaction, indicative of the conservative mindset in general.

In case anyone's still reading by this point, I'll repeat what I've said before: allowing editors right of fair reply to controversial subjects would solve many of your "vandalism" problems. A "See also" link at the foot of the article would probably suffice, as long as sysops refrained from egregious distortion of the reply article. You should be sufficiently confident in the truth of your beliefs to tolerate a lot more dissent than you currently do.

Finding your comments to be biased and illogical, I skipped to the end. We state our perspective. How liberal is yours???--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)


--Robledo 18:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

In fact the Hillary Clinton phrase was not only cited by a footnote, it was cited in the paragraph as a statement by Bay Buchanon. That was actually an interesting exercise, because obviously the footnote was not consulted, yet the reader gleens a real bias and sympathy from the writer toward Hillary Clinton. Interesting also, the very Clintonesque technique of having the evidence before your face, and concocting a different telling of events. RobS 20:14, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

June 19

  • 1846 - The first baseball game under modern rules is played in Hoboken, New Jersey
  • 1862 - U.S. Congress prohibits slavery in the United States
  • 1870 - The Confederate States of America ceases to exist.

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:16, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Done, and thanks again. I've expanded/corrected them a little, but the dates all seemed okay in this case. The main issue was the slavery; it wasn't the end of all slavery in the U.S., just in U.S. territories, from what I can see. Philip J. Rayment 07:12, 19 June 2007 (EDT)


Taking that as a no then... good luck?

See here for a joke :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Daily Quote

Our daily quote has been the same for a while. I recommend either "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"(Mr. dictionary B. Clinton) or "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."(Mr. reasonable H. Dean) HAHAHAHA! Bohdan 22:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Great idea, Bohdan. Go ahead and put one of those up. You can use Editing main page and the quote is in the first link there.--Aschlafly 22:43, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Mention in the Register

The Register is... I don't know how to describe it... a somewhat bloggish, somewhat Onion-ish, somewhat new-ish website with some readership overlap with Slashdot. It is about IT news, and carries mostly authentic IT news, but the articles are written with a snarky, highly opinionated point of view. Is is UK-based, generally liberal, frequently annoyed with the U. S. in general and the Bush administration in particular. It is, however, quite critical of Wikipedia, which may explain why it just ran an article on Conservapedia, based mostly on the L. A. Times story:

Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia 'The truth shall set you free', claims Wiki rival

I mention the article for what it's worth. Unlike the L. A. Times piece, the Register's article is mocking and tongue-in-cheek. I don't think it should be mentioned on the main page. I would be very annoyed if someone put this on the main page in a way that implied that this was positive coverage; it is not. But it's still coverage in an online page that has a fair amount of computer-geek readership. The Register's Alexa rank is 1704. Two quotations:

Brits, meanwhile, will doubtless enjoy the entry on our very own Iron Lady (, described as "a strong supporter of the the United States", who was "a good friend of President Ronald Reagan", and who united with him "in actions against the Communists". Whether the latter is a reference to Nicaragua's Sandinista government or the National Union of Mineworkers is not noted.
We at El Reg are looking forward to the final, Ragnarök ( confrontation between Conservapedia, R a t i o n a l Wiki (what kind of d-bag places a spam filter on a website that promotes open discussion and debate?) and Wikipedia. The outcome of this titanic battle will be decided by either natural selection or according to God's will, depending on which one of them is really telling the truth.

Dpbsmith 09:55, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

No Limits to the Greed of Michael Moore - Um, What?

Before you say it, no, I'm in no way defending Michael Moore. Rational public debate has no use for his style of theatrics, imo. That said, what does the AdAge article have to do with his being greedy? Surely the editorial position of CP isn't pro-piracy? Even if the site wants to indulge in some good old-fashioned schadenfreude, the headline doesn't parse with the story itself.

I don't see anything in the article from Moore at all, except his lawyer yapping about harassment for Fahrenheit 911. Go after the guy if you want, but how about for the things he HAS done and said, which should be easy enough. Aziraphale 10:33, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

That's a lot better. Granted, I suspect he "hid" a copy in Canada as a publicity stunt, not out of paranoia, but once you act like an idiot I guess you can't be upset when people infer idiocy in your actions. :P Aziraphale 16:33, 20 June 2007 (EDT) <-idiocy not implied...
Extremely well put. Perhaps I can conclude that Michael Moore is just another self-promoting liar who profits by fooling others, and he doesn't even believe what he says? Can I conclude that Moore is another example of liberal deceit? Fortunately, many are not as dumb as Moore may hope.--Aschlafly 16:40, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I promise, I'm not contrary just for contrary's sake, but my intuition (sorry, no evidence, just my gut) is that he believes something similar to what he espouses. Unfortunately, he undercuts his credibility with his desire to score points. So many people, when they get in an argument, lose sight of their original purpose and devolve into mere fighting, where the one-upping or embarrassment of their opponent becomes more important than actually trying to sort out a dispute. He's a classic example of this. I bet he really does think centralized health care is a better system; I bet he only convinces those susceptible to cheap propaganda. Aziraphale 17:50, 20 June 2007 (EDT) <-only falls for the really expensive propaganda...
  • Both the Wall Street Journal and Fortune have had articles about Moore hiding money off shore in Grand Cayman, etc. He even owns stock in Halliburton. Unfortunately, no matter what his true intentions are, he is just another Limousine Liberal (see deceit) bashing others for what he himself does.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:37, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Sure, could be. *shrug* I try not to pay to lefties like him (or righties like Coulter) much mind. I refuse to call either side stupid, or evil, or un-American. The gas bags are... well, gas bags. Living with themselves is punishment enough, what does our judgment matter? Aziraphale 14:32, 21 June 2007 (EDT) <- made a killing on gas-proof bags, though...

President Bush vetoes stem cell bill

Some good news, something the main page is sorely lacking.,2933,284712,00.html

--Conservateur 20:01, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

News from British Conservatives

The British Conservative Party outlines how, if they form a government, they want to controll medical care.

Surely such sensible Conservative plans deserve a mention on the front page?

BritCon 06:34, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I looked at this plan. It's not worth the paper it's written on. The British Conservative Party would benefit immensely from adopting conservative policies like the American conservative movement, rather than simply proposing "me-too" versions of failed liberal policies.--Aschlafly 11:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Do you think the immense benefit would include an increase in the number of votes they receive? What part or parts (or the whole lot?) of their policy is a version of failed liberal ones and why have they failed? What have they failed to deliver and who has failed to benefit? How could the service be better delivered and the public better benefit?
BritCon 11:13, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Republicans in the United States tried that, BritCon. They won the votes, and got kicked out the next election because they talked the talk, did not walk the walk. Seeking to win votes alone, for the purpose of winning votes, is another liberal deceit. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 11:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Must everything be a "liberal deceit"? Perhaps a more substantive argument against the Conservative parties policies would be more useful. RDre 11:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
One of the simplest measures to introduce that would give the health service a major kickstart to recovery would be to change it back to the National Health Service from its current International Health Service status... File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 12:49, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I personally would not mind seeing in the United States a bit of a compromise between national healthcare and private healthcare. Something along the lines of what some European countries do: Allow health care itself to remain private, resulting in superior health care and in a more timely fashion, but get rid of health insurance companies and have one insurance provider: The government. That way no one is denied health insurance and insurance rates can be determined by the government, not private industry.--Elamdri 19:39, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
We British Conservative are not all too familiar with American Conservatism. I'm sure we could learn a lot and the voting public would certainly appreciate us all the more for "walking the walk" so to speak. As far as the "walking" goes we aren't really past the "crawling" stage yet. Conservapedia with its more than 12,050 educational, clean, and concise entries, including more than 350 lectures and term lists, will undoubtedly prove an invaluable aid in such an endeavour. Perhaps Mr. Schlafly could find the time to write an enlightening essay on the subject. His track record so far has been impressive. Essays such Liberal Falsehoods, Motivations for the Theory of Evolution and Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia will no doubt long remain an inspiration to us all. I, for one, would certainly love to read Mr. Schlafly's eloquent and cognizant deliberations on how and why the British Conservative should adopt the American Conservative approach to health care policy and what such a policy would entail.
Godspeed! BritCon 07:14, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Interesting Story

Read the third line from the bottom.--Elamdri 19:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is being studied in terms of its quality compared to Wikipedia

Conservapedia is being studied in terms of its quality/citations compared to Wikipedia. Here is the study which I believe is ongoing:

There was an extremely intelligent person who was a conservative who used Wikipedia as a source to get more information. He didn't rely on the Wikipedia text but relied on the citations. I believe that is how a lot of people are. In short, an article is only as good as its number and quality of citations.

Like it or not people associate quality with citations. Whether we want to compete with Wikipedia or not, we nonetheless are competing with Wikipedia for peoples attention. Why roll over a die and not compete on quality of articles via good citations. And even if we refuse to compete with Wikipedia, isn't having well cited articles important? If not, why not?

I also believe that if it is reported in the conservative press (or liberal press which I doubt it would be) that Conservapedia articles are generally higher in quality according to a study that we could have a lot of people join Conservapedia.

I personally would never rely on a uncited article from a Wiki and think that uncited articles are a waste of bandwidth. I also believe that people who put up uncited material are just begging for it to be edited out. I have found that cited material stays on Wikis far longer.

I strongly believe we need a template that triggers an article to be on a list and enforcement of the sourcing policy. What is the point of Conservapedia commandments if they are rarely if ever enforced? It is a Conservapedia commandment that you must reveal your sources.

Personally, I think we should be stronger and say that material needs to be sourced (unless of course, you are saying the sky is blue), because people can think that since they are not using a source by relying on memory that they do not have to source.Conservative 21:47, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree with that, but I also feel that we need to focus on the creation of articles, as we are severely lacking in number. And we should focus on non-politicized articles, as they will be less attractive to vandals and more appropriate for the site.--Elamdri 03:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
It's odd that people are always using "the sky is blue" as an example of a statement for which no citation can be found, or that doesn't need citation.
To begin with, it's odd that this particular statement is mentioned, because it isn't even accurate. It needs to be qualified, as well as referenced. I'm not even sure where the idea that the sky "is" blue comes from. Perhaps from kindergarten teachers ordering kids to color the sky blue. The sky is only blue at times. Even if one ignores clouds and overcast, at sunset it displays a huge variety of colors. It is said to be greenish when tornados are approaching. Sky colors other than blue are recognized in popular song lyrics: "When the sky is a bright canary yellow," Oscar Hammerstein, "A Cockeye Optimist," in South Pacific. And Matthew 2:16, "He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red."
And it doesn't take more that ten minutes to find a citation:
  • "the blue sky is so commonplace that it is taken for granted," A Field Guide to the Atmosphere, Schaeffer, Vincent J. and John A. Day, (1998), Houghton Mifflin Field Guides.
  • "It is now well established that the luminosity and blue colour on very clear days and at considerable altitudes above the sea-level can almost be accounted for by the scattering of light by the molecules of air, without postulating suspended particles of foreign matter." R. J. Strutt (Lord Rayleigh), Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 94(662), June 01, 1918, pp. 453 - 459.
Now, in the short term, when creating new articles on noncontroversial topics on which one has sound knowledge, I don't think there's anything terrible wrong with roughing in the well-known facts without citations. Dpbsmith 09:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Don't mention ze war!

(This isn't a suggestion for front page, just an interesting item I read over breakfast) At the EU Summit, Germany has been pushing for a change to the EU's voting system, so that the countries with the largest population have greater influence. The Polish prime minister pointed out that this was a bit rich coming from the Germans, as Poland actually has 28 million fewer people than it should have as a result of the Germans slaughtering their way across Europe in World war 2, losing fully 25% of its population by the time peace was declared. Good point, Mr. Kaczynski. Interested readers may see more of the item here. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:49, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Schoolgirl in High Court battle to express her religious beliefs

A teenage girl who was banned by her school from wearing a "chastity ring" is taking her case to the High Court today. Story here. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT) Miss Playfoot said the purity ring was not a fad.

I re-read the article and picked up on this statement from Miss Playfoot: "It says that I'm not going to have sex until I'm married and I'm going to stay sexually pure until I'm married. In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith. I think in the society we live in today with lots of pregnancies and STDs, something like this is quite important and should be taken hold of." Common sense from a 16 year old schoolgirl... and I would bet my bottom dollar her school will be encouraging its 11-16 yr old female pupils to take the HPV vaccine... File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Why don't Christians just start adding doctrines to make stuff like crosses mandatory to get around rules like this. To be truly honest, I'm all for banning all religious "icons" in school if they're gonna make a fuss over it. Did you know Sihk kids can wear ceremonial daggers to school?--Elamdri 07:25, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Some denominations already do. Some require that women wear head coverings, some require that females do not wear slacks. The schools in my local area certainly oblige those requirements, even when they go against dress codes, or uniforms. As a vile nasty, deceitful, atheist, I have no problems with concessions to things required by a certain faith, be that faith Christian, Moslem or Jewish. The idea off "adding doctrines" so that your personal flavor of religion gets to wear something strikes me of "keeping up with the Joneses". I seem to remember a parable warning about that, but I could be wrong.Boomcoach 11:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Looks like America isn't the only country that has liberals with an agenda of Christian oppression! Tomservo 07:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Retracted by Author with apologies.--Elamdri 10:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
So in retrospect that didn't come off as funny as I'd hoped. Sorry if I angered anyone and I offer my apologize.--Elamdri 15:41, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Don't be too sure of that. And if you mean that she does not conform to the world's idea of physical beauty, then that only means that she will not have beauty as the double-edged sword that it is. What has beauty done, to name one example, for Paris Hilton?--TerryHTalk 10:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Most UK schools ban jewellery except for tiny studs in pierced ears. This is for health and safety reasons, and as an ex-teacher I personally support this. Most UK schools allow amendments to school uniforms (please, Americans, remember that most UK high schools require a set uniform) to accommodate garments that are part of a religious requirement such as turbans for Sikh boys and hijab and modest dress for Muslim girls. Banned items include items that are part of a religious expression but not a requirement of religious faith - that would include star of David necklaces for Jewish girls and crucifixes or chastity rings for Christian girls. It's not religious discrimination. Bear in mind, too, that the school curriculum in the UK requires an act of corporate worship in schools 'of a broadly Christian character', from which parents who object may ask their children to be withdrawn. Religious education is also one of the few subjects outside the maths/science/English core that is compulsory for all children until the age of sixteen. This is hardly discrimination against Christians.--Britinme 13:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

The government cannot permanently maintain an official "neutrality" toward religious and moral issues. Look at Wikipedia and their arbitration committee, which has become their acting government. They pretend to maintain a neutral stance toward everything, but they end up protecting some views more than others.
It would be be better to adopt an official view, and then define various degrees of tolerance for disparate or opposing views. For example, the Judeo-Christian ethic against murder and theft could be non-negotiable, but a mild degree of tolerance could be shown toward, say, Robin Hood (steal from the rich, give to the poor) with strong disapproval given to piracy (no ads for "Pirates of the Caribbean") or socialist confiscation of property.
An ethic of support for pre-marital chastity would be good for any school system or government. Perhaps those parents who believe in promiscuity could be allowed to opt out, but the school staff should not tell girls to take off their chastity rings. --Ed Poor Talk 17:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Poor, the idea of parents having a belief in promiscuity facinates me. Please elucidate, what does such a belief system entail? Or are you just pulling our legs? BritCon 13:21, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody interested... some categorization? We have 3,500 uncategorized pages. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 22:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Sure. And you fellows should shut down account creation, you're not going to be able to stop this vandal by mere blocks. --Che 23:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Is there a list of existing categories? One reason I haven't tried this is because I might through ignorance create duplicate categories, which would make the situation more rather than less confused. Pachyderm 08:43, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
One good way to see the existing categories is to go to Special Pages, then select "Prefect Index". Leave the search box blank, but select "Category" from the namespace dropdown menu. Then just hit go. That should give you a list of existing categories.--Steve 01:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Belated thanks, Steve. Pachyderm 08:55, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

  • It would be nice to know who is working on this, and from what point they started. Many are already done....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Six Flags

Anyone hear about the girl who lost her feet at the Six Flags in Louisville?--Elamdri 04:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, those Liberals 20:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

16 year old marries coach

...I quit life. I am now all the more retarded for having read that. YOU DON'T LET YOU 16 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER MARRY A 40 YEAR OLD MAN! "We had no choice but to sign the consent forms," oh puhleeze, who the heck to they think they're kidding. Thats the WORST cop out I have ever heard. Excercise some freakin parenting. And whats with the school hiring that guy. That guy has the word "Rapist" written all over his face! And who names their daughter Windy? Do they have a son named Apple? This has to be the most shameful thing I read all year.--Elamdri 12:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Your heartfelt reaction is appreciated. I would not, however, blame the parents as much as you do here. The parents did everything they could, except pull their daughter out of the school. The parents complained to everyone as they saw this unfold. Once a relationship has gone on for two years, as this apparently may have, I'm not sure there was much left the parents could do, and I doubt denying consent at that point is a realistic option. If there is a moral for parents here, it is this: pull your kids out of public school before it's too late to help them.--Aschlafly 12:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I missed the tiny line about them going to the police. I was confused by that.--Elamdri 03:21, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Terrible. Nearly as bad as a 50 year old man marrying a 26 year old woman. BritCon 13:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
No, BritCon, it's not "nearly as bad." A coach hooking up with a girl on his team is far, far worse. A principal rejecting the parents' complaints about this is also bad. Even liberals can appreciate why, I trust.--Aschlafly 21:00, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

That Principal should take a look at Deceit, allowing his personal bias to override good sense. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:59, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

I like how my old junior high did gym. Female gym teachers for girls, Male gym teachers for boys. At least that way you minimize your problems.--Elamdri 05:38, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Unless they're corrupting the children with the disease of The Gay, and since most female gym teachers are lesbians that's not unlikely. IMFromKathlene 17:16, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't this article strike anyone else as a bit alarmist? One teacher does something pretty messed up, but does that really reflect on the entire public school system? I would be willing to bet that statistically, the instances of similar events occuring are not significant at all.Jtime 20:09, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

You would certainly lose--and if I were a betting man (which, being a Christian, I am not), I would lay you twenty-to-one on the proposition that this sort of thing is all over the place.
On WorldNetDaily, the incidence of sexual exploitation of pupils by their teachers is so great that WND has a special "column" for that sort of news: "Sextra Credit."--TerryHTalk 20:14, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
It's still all anecdotal evidence-- there are a lot of teachers out there and even if there are enough of them sexually exploiting their pupils to keep a column about them running I wouldn't say that damns the public school system any more than priests exploiting children damns all of Christianity. IMFromKathlene 20:22, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
It is a case of bad statistics. A quick and dirty Google search pulled up a few numbers. In 1998 there were 244 cases in six months of abuse ranging from unwanted touching to rape as repoted by Education Weekly. I couldn't find the population of children in public schools for that year, but I did find the number for 2003, 48.5 million, and for 1990 41.2 million. Say we use the 1990 number and 488 cases in a year. The cases of abuse make up 0.000012 percent of the population of children in school. This is really dirty computing, and isn't absolutely scientific, but it still points to the fact taht children are probably very un-likely to be sexually abused in school, and are probably more likely to get have children while still in school. Not that I am downplaying the fact that such behaviour is abhorrent.Jtime 21:02, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Unlikely, but not impossible. Shall we accept even one such case?
How many such cases did the country see, say, in 1952? Or 1962?
How many such cases are seen in private schools? And--more to the point--how do the schools handle cases of that kind?
How many such cases occur among home schoolers?--TerryHTalk 21:09, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
No, I'm not saying that this kind of thing is acceptable at all. As for home schoolers, since most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members, I would think proportionaly home schooled kids would be at a much higher risk.Jtime 06:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
You're over-egging that pudding in order to make a sly dig at homeschooling; the statistical studies would actually probably say something like: "About 95% of victims know their perpetrators" (Source: CCPCA, 1992); "It is estimated that approximately 71% of child sex offenders are under 35 and knew the victim at least casually" (Source: Burgess & Groth, 1984.) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Why would I make a slydig at homeschoolers? I was homeschooled. I have seen figures that indicate a higher rate of child molestation by close family members than non-family members. Honestly can't tell you off the top of my head though, and I have to be getting to class.Jtime 06:51, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction was the same as Elamdri's: Why did they sign the consent waiver? That being said, shouldn't there have been someone at the school, i.e. a principal, vice-principal, athletic director, or someone that they could have talked to to prevent this from happening? When I was in high school cross country, my coach was fired simply for trying to recruit players away from the football team, I believe under the guise of harassment. Something clearly has broken down if this was allowed to happen. DanH 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Incontrovertible proof of liberal bias in the media

Send this link to every liberal you know who has ever denied the existence of liberal bias in the media. Of a list of 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 to 2007, about 95% of them gave to democrats or liberal causes.

--Conservateur 02:46, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Conservateur! The article has been posted. Crocoite Talk 06:34, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Seriously amazingly exhaustive list of the majority of media elites. How can the Republicans on that list work everyday?! Tomservo 06:16, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Just because someone makes political contributions to Democrats or Liberal causes does not necessarily imply that they will have a bias in covering the news. If someone produced a study of political contributions from Fox News and they happened to be overwhelmingly for Conservatives and Conservative causes, would that prove that Fox News is biased as well? No. This is the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, as well as a hasty generalization. Stryker 08:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Stryker, now don't tell me that you really believe that a journalist that contributes to wouldn't imply they have a liberal bias. Let's put your hypothesis to the test. I will take a journalist that donates to, and see if they have a liberal bias.
"(D), Gary Kamiya, writer at large and former executive editor, $250 to, which opposed President Bush, in September 2004. Kamiya, who now writes a column for Salon, was executive editor when he made the donation. In his column he has urged the impeachment of President Bush, whom he calls 'a historic disaster.' " [1]
It appears that Gary is liberal. Let's go to his column and see about five of his most recent liberal-leaning articles:
"Are We Rome?" Hollowed out by arrogance, corruption and a bloated military, the greatest empire the world has ever known fell. Is America doomed to follow in its footsteps? By Gary Kamiya 2007-06-07 [2]
Memorial Day The best way to honor those who have fallen in this terrible war is to bring the troops home. By Gary Kamiya 2007-05-28 [3]
Why Bush hasn't been impeached Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. By Gary Kamiya 2007-05-22 [4]
Bush's favorite historian British author Alistair Horne explains what Pinochet, Sharon and Bush have all taken from his work, why peace means getting rid of the priests, and why Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place. By Gary Kamiya 2007-05-08 [5]
Last refuge of the scoundrel Bush is trying to convince the American people that Iraq is the WWII of our time, and Democrats are craven defeatists. Both claims are absurd. By Gary Kamiya [2007-05-01] [6]
Stryker, your logical fallacy argument doesn't bear out what when we look at the details of just ONE liberal journalist; I could go on and on. Crocoite Talk 10:09, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I suspect you can do the same for others, but can we make a distinction between columnists and journalists? I don't think anybody would be surprised that Ann Coulter and George Will donate to right-leaning organizations, or that Al Franken or... meh, I don't really know who the lib columnists are; WHOEVER... donate to the left. What will be a concern is if, say, Brian Williams or Shepard Smith are shown to donate to one side or the other, and then you do similar research to the above and find them consistently leaning in the same direction as their money.
Although really, I care (and I think it's the real point) more about the leaning in the first place, rather than if they also send their money that way. If they don't send a single penny to a political cause, but they push an agenda, the pushing is still a problem, correct? Aziraphale 14:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT) <-- will push agendas for food
Aziraphale, Here's a few examples of liberal bias of the MSM news anchors compiled by the Media Research Center:
  1. BRIAN WILLIAMS NBC Nightly News Anchor, 2004 - Present
  2. Walter Cronkite: Liberal Media Icon
  3. ABC’s Charles Gibson, Conventional Liberal
  4. CBS’s Mike Wallace: Too Many Minutes of Liberal Bias
  5. KATIE COURIC NBC Today, 1989 - 2006; CBS Evening News, 2006 - Present
  6. The Dan Rather File - Decades of Liberal Media Bias
  7. World News Tonight With Peter Jennings - 20 Years of Liberal Bias
  8. Connie Chung: CNN's New Prime Time Star
  9. Bryant Gumbel Set to Retire
Wow, there's a TON of liberal bias in the MSM. If you can't see it, you must be a liberal ;-) 17:16, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I'd really appreciate it if you avoid the old pitfall of going on the attack in the middle of what was an informative conversation. I asked that the previous poster not use a columnist to impugn journalists, since (in my opinion, at least) they do similar-looking but fundamentally different jobs. As I said at the beginning of my post, "I suspect you can do the same for others." You just proved that I was right; thank you for that. :) By the by, who's "talking" here? Aziraphale 00:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT) <- Look Who's Talking Now...
Thank you, Aziraphale, for lending me a hand. I've tried responding twice now, but IE is annoying and whenever I accidentally hit the 'back' button my 518, I lose my post. Anyway, I can boil it down to this: My logical fallacy argument has simply been proven with the so-called 'rebuttals.' Why? Because you began actually investigating the body of literature. Subsequent attempts to prove liberal bias in this discussion thread have not been based on the initial accounting of liberal campaign contributions - they've delved to another topic where one coulda ctually make connections. Of course, your work in that area is null and void, seeing as this last entry into the foray is just a re-hashing of a violently biased rhetoric from a fringe organization, I don't even know how to treat it.
We conservatives need to quit playing the 'beaten dog' card. We're not an imperiled minority; there is no conspiracy to eliminate us from the political dialogue. There is no liberal bias in the media; don't you that by now most conservatives would've been ran from office by now if there really was a concentrated liberal bias? Everyone has enough skeletons in their closet that if an organization was biased enough against you, they could very easily run you from positions of power.
At the very least, let's agree to disagree - you can claim liberal bias all you want, and run to the conservative fringes for your processed, ideologically appeasing news. I'll get my news from all sources so that I can determine for my self what is actually happening in the world and what the implications are. Stryker 10:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Main Page revamp

I think we should revamp the main page and work all the stuff at the bottom into the template. Geo.Complain! 15:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Possible Main Page News story?

"The [British] Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design ... should not be taught as science"[1]

Seem like it might be a good front page article that would server both your audiences - it would rouse the ire of your supporters, and also give yourselves at least the appearance of 'Fair & Balanced' reporting to your enemies. IrishAngel 23:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Done. Thanks!--Aschlafly 00:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Genetically Enhanced Turbo-Liberals

Those Liberals can't sink much lower. They are now out to create genetically enhanced Turbo-Liberals. What I can't figure is that they ask that potential sources of genetic material be "very happy" and consider "Liberal political views and athletic ability" pluses. How can anyone who has forsaken Jesus be happy? [2] BritCon 06:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Done! Thanks, it's on the front page now. Great catch.--Aschlafly 10:53, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
I, for one, welcome our new genetically enhanced turbo-liberal overlords.--Conservateur 12:41, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
You guys have never seen GATTACA, have you?--Elamdri 10:44, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes.--Conservateur 13:34, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Good movie. Intriguing plot.--Elamdri 13:36, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. And if this "turbo-liberal" story is any indication, we are frighteningly close to a world where we natural born humans are subjugated by a superior race of liberals.--Conservateur 14:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

You say potato...

  • You say potāto, I say patăto...

as the old song says. In an statement reminicient of Bill & Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards has taken a stand opposite of her husband in support of gay marriage. [3] You will recall, the Clinton's raised this covering all bases to a high art, Bill checking "No" on their joint tax return to donate $1 to the Presidential Election Fund while Hillary checked "Yes".

Two questions, (a) is this News?, and (b) are we ready to kick off the Elizabeth Edwards in 2016 for President campaign with this? RobS 16:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, that is good. The candidate's wife takes the more extreme position to rally the base, while the candidate pretends to be more moderate. The playing of politics here is so obvious it is laughable. Let's post this news.--Aschlafly 17:04, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Isn't it possible they just legitimately disagree on the issue? And I doubt Mrs. Edwards is going to be in shape to run for anything in 2016.--Steve 17:33, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
That's like saying, "isn't it possible that the Yankee pitcher wanted to throw a ball that a Red Sox hitter could knock out the park?" Look, politics is competitive, and everything the Edwards do is designed to enhance their (meager) chances). Their latest effort is particularly silly and transparent.--Aschlafly 17:45, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Great sports analogy. You find a play that works, and then you copy or steal the playbook. RobS 17:52, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
See, Steve, when you have to fake positions on issues like liberals do, you end up stooping to these kinds of tactics. It's seriously disgusting the amount of politicking liberals do. Tomservo 06:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


  6. [

Breaking News section should be renamed

It's not so much news as it is a showcase of liberal/democrat stupidity and questionable behavior. Maybe instead of "Breaking News" we should call it something like "Stupid Liberals/Democrats".--Conservateur 16:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Well we also have a lot of stories that are more just pointing out flaws. Besides, if we did that, that would be sinking sorta low.--Elamdri 18:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I dispute that the stories are about "stupid liberals" or "stupid Democrats". The front page stories are representative of how a large percentage of liberals or Democrats feel. For example, most liberals do support creating chimerae.--Aschlafly 19:12, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I come from a very liberal city, and not once have I ever heard of a liberal friend supporting the creation of chimeras. As a matter of fact, at my old high school, we used to hold lots of debates between the political clubs, and one time when we discussed bio-ethics, we talked about chimeras and cloning and everyone in the room agreed against the use of genetics in that way. I've never seen any mainstream liberal seriously advocate any sort of eugenics or controversial genetic experimentation outside of stem-cell research.
As for the 'Breaking News' section, why not actually convert it to a breaking news section? We could all agree on a list of five or six mainstream media sources, then have two or three volunteers monitor RSS feeds for those sources. It doesn't matter if the sources are biased or not, because we only need to present the news, not spin on the news. The news feed would be invaluable for students as it provides them with current events, and could also inspire authors to create articles related to those events. Stryker 10:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Stryker, legislation has been introduced in liberal Britain to authorize creating chimerae. That proves that many liberals support it. Those who believe in The Theory of Evolution, as many liberals do, should have no objection to chimerae.
Liberal denial is a common technique, and we've seen many examples here. Many liberals support creating chimerae.--Aschlafly 11:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't doubt the veracity of your point Mr. Schlafly, but I would be very interested in reading about it, as while it is disgusting and grossly unethical, as science it is an intriguing topic. I wasn't aware of any legislation anywhere attempting to legalize it. But still, I don't think that a piece of legislation would necessarily prove that there is wide support for it. As a matter of fact, save for a referendum that won by a majority, I don't think it proves there's any support for it outside of the fringes.
I must disagree with your assertions about the theory of evolution, though. I am an ardent subscriber to the theory, mainly due to my application of evolution in Computer Science (evolutionary algorithms are revolutionizing the way we understand computing). However, I have strong objections to the development of chimerae. As I write this, I'm sitting in an internet cafe with a very good friend of mine who happens to be ultra-liberal and involved with the local party, and he too is disgusted by the concept of chimarae.
I'm sorry, but I just think you may be mistaken in pushing this over as a tenet of liberal beliefs. Seriously, at some point, don't we have to accept what other people say they believe prima facia, and let the principle of parsimony take over? Occam would not be pleased if we were always contending that others were really hiding their true beliefs. Stryker 12:26, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Stryker, deceit is a big part of politics and science, particularly by those who don't teach that it is wrong to lie. Check out our entry on that topic if you need examples. We don't just sit back and allow falsehoods to be accepted at face value. Not here.
It's great that you oppose the creation of chimerae. But your opposition doesn't help much if you don't recognize that your fellow liberals are pushing this. Conservatives aren't pushing this, that's for sure.
Show me 100 people who are "ardent subscribers" to The Theory of Evolution and I'll show you 50 who welcome the creation of chimerae. Show me 100 people who have strong faith and I'll show you 99 who oppose this.--Aschlafly 12:38, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect - you claim that this wiki doesn't sit back and allow falsehoods to be accepted at face value, when this is exactly what you're doing here. Liberals do not advocate the creation of chimarae. Period. If you can prove me wrong on this, then I will gladly eat my words and apologize. But it is simply not the case.
I would gladly compile a list of a hundred biologists who subscribe to the ToE, but I doubt it's worth my time, seeing as you've already lumped me in with liberals for disagreeing with you. I came to this wiki with the ambition to help you all expand and to fight vandalism, work I've already started with my current expansion of vector and urban heat island. If this is the way that honest editors and conservatives are treated - by basely accusing them of being liberal for correcting what is grossly untrue - then I have second thoughts about joining this organization.
Sir, there is no deceit in honest science. Deceit is tracked down and stamped out like a deadly virus. This is why Universities have draconian measures in place to deal with cheats and plagiarizers. Sure, there has been fraduluent scientists, but there are fradulent practictioners of every academia - and they are always stamped out, very often by their peers. There is deceit, however, in claiming to know the convictions of others when you do not.
I apologize if this rhetoric is harsh, but I joined here to add to the reputation of the Conservative movement, not sit by and watch it wallow. I'd prefer to stay here a while and help, but if you feel it fit to remove an honest conservative such as myself, then so be it. There are plenty of other wikis out there that would be glad to have an honest, hardworking editor. Stryker 13:28, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Fascinating. I spent 30 seconds looking for some more information on this parliamentary legislation, and look what I found:;jsessionid=JOXNJG53YKTQRQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/18/nembryo18.xml
This actual news article actually discuss the legislation at hand. The source you're operating off of,, cannot possibly be considered a legitimate, mainstream news source. You see, this is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned that mainstream news sources should be utilized. That LifeNews article says nothing about the legislation, compared to the article I just referenced from the Telegraph. The Telegraph article only presents the facts, and it's very clear that this issue has nothing to do with liberals or any of the like. As a matter of fact, it's virtually the same issue as stem-cell research. This Telegraph article would be a great addition to the Front Page; it links to a page that discusses topics pertinent to the stem cell debate, with precise, non-emotional and non-biased language. Stryker 13:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Stryker, please state your point of view and stop trying to appear objective. Are you another liberal who won't admit it? We're up-front and honest here.--Conservateur 13:52, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't know how much more upfront I can be. As I told Azi on my talk page, and as I've indicated here, I'm a subscriber to the ToE and a scientist, and I'm conservative. I oppose big government and intervention in foreign affairs. I'm socially moderate, as I don't believe the government has the power to intervene in social matters that do not cause damage to life or property. Quit calling me a liberal. Is this how I'm going to be treated - as some sort of liberal enemy - during my stay here simply because I intend to make sure that this wiki represents the facts as opposed to some sort of spin? Stryker 13:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Well if you would stop expressing ideas that are contrary to Christianity and conservatism, maybe you wouldn't be mistaken for a liberal so often.--Conservateur 14:01, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent for sake of reading, this is in reply to Conservateur)
My ideas are definitely not contradictory to Conservatism. They're pretty much traditional conservative philosophy. As for being contradictory to Christianity, I doubt so. I have not expressed anything here contradictory to Christianity. I may be Jewish, but still - there is nothing here contradictory to Christianity. I'm simply defending the truth, and the truth of the matter is that liberals don't advocate the production of chimarae No one does, outside from some fringe scientists working in Stem-Cell research who think that it might be the next area of intense interest (which it won't be, because the ethics of it are even shadier than stem-cell research). Stryker 14:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
As Aschlafly stated, anecdotal evidence suggests that pretty much all liberals support combining human and animal DNA. Many liberal scientists at this very moment are trying to create pigs that have human organs for transplant. Conservatives definitely don't want science to make such "advances", so the support must therefore be entirely within the liberal community. QED.--Conservateur 14:30, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
That's absolutely absurd. There is zero anecdotal evidence that support for combining human and animal DNA is even a mainstream ideology. It's preposterous. I'm well aware of the research in attempting to artifically grow human organs, but this is DRASTICALLY different than 'combining human and animal DNA.' That research is controversial as well, and is why many labs are investigating the construction of mechanical hearts and organs as opposed to biological ones. Whether you consider saving the life of another person an advance or not is up to you and whether or not you believe in the methodology done to accomplish such ends, but it's inappropriate to make such sweeping generalizations about your movement. Stryker 14:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


you should block the Tor network if you want to reduce vandalism. Jaques 23:55, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

News on the main page

I was wondering if you could add this news article on the main page. It is about the Ten Commandments being moved off of public property. Staple 00:30, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

That's a cite to a petition drive. Do you have a cite to a news article describing the plan to move the Ten Commandments off public property?--Aschlafly 00:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Here are other websites that have this article:

Staple 00:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Teen Challenge

Right now Teen Challenge is undergoing persecution in at least two areas because of the way they work. Newsworthy? Geo.Complain! 01:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Sounds newsworthy. Do you have a link we could post?--Aschlafly 01:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
One is a ACLJ brief (Discrimination by government)1, the other is one that has a nasty opponent trying everything in her might to stop the program.2 Geo.Complain! 15:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


"Publicity" is a double-edged sword... but did anybody notice that "Conservapedia" became the number one "hot trend" on Google in the U.S on June 27? (I had to look this up, because I wasn't sure how it worked; here's what Google say: Hot Trends reflects what people are searching for on Google today. Rather than showing the most popular searches overall, which would always be generic terms like "weather," Hot Trends highlights searches that have sudden surges in popularity. Our algorithm analyzes millions of web searches performed on Google and displays those searches that deviate the most from their historic traffic pattern. Fox 04:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT) PS Who is Sulfur Hexafluoride? I haven't seen any of his movies. :P (And thnx to J who emailed me about this subject ;) )File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Click to enlarge
Conservapedia was referred to on The Daily Show last night.--Steve 10:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Liberal media drags up 25 year old story about Romney

Good grief. Is the liberal media so desperate to take Romney down that they're resorting to dredging up an incident that happened over 25 years ago? So Romney strapped his dog to the roof of his car for a 12-hour trip. Big deal. It's not like the dog died or anything.

--Conservateur 13:22, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I hate to disagree in my first conservaedit but, you don't find it at all disturbing that someone would strap the dog to the roof of the car and drive across the country? I think that's a little nuts!
To your comment about the "liberal media" dredging up the story, I say this. Your link takes us to ABC News. ABC News reports that they heard about the dog from the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe article is a glowing article about the Romney family's summer vacation. The dog is not the focus of the article. One very casual sentence tells us how Mitt piled the suit cases in the car, and strapped the dog to the roof. No big deal, just going on vacation. There you go, un-liberal media brought it up, liberal media just noticed how insane it was!
Oh, not to disagree a second time in the same post (geez I'm kind of a jerk I guess) but, Romney doesn't need any help getting "taken down"! Recent polls show that he is averaging 15 points behind Gulianni, 9 points behind Thompson and 6 points behind McCain! Sorry guy.

While we are on the topic; I think it is important to know if a candidate is prone to animal cruelty! The Humane Society of the United States says,

"Intentional cruelty is a particular concern because it is a sign of psychological distress and often indicates that an individual either has already experienced violence or may be predisposed to committing acts of violence."

No matter how many years go by, you should still be responsible for your actions. I don't think someone who could be "predisposed to committing acts of violence" would make a good president. Thank you for reading.

--SeniorGomez 14:52, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Epistemology behind Conservapedia - disputed

I am an editor of Wikipedia, and I believe that your claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is a lie. On what epistemological level do you purport that your views about politics, religion and similar topics are not biased?

I find this encyclopedia to be misleading, xenophobic and dangerous - and these comments are coming from someone who has nothing against either Christianity or conservatism per se. If you can refute my arguments by claiming that you are not biased, please do so.--Hilti 14:45, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

You just demonstrated your own bias towards Wikipedia, as well as your own bias against Conservapedia, so therefore you answered your own argument. Karajou 14:48, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I didn't say I was biased towards Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as you probably know, has a neutral point of view. This encyclopedia does not have a neutral point of view, and the most dangerous thing about it is that it asserts this information as if it were fact. I am not a Christian. I do not accept the Bible as fact. I am not American. I do not support the Republican Party and would support the Democratic Party if I was American. On an epistemological level, what makes you think that you have the right to assert the things you do on this encyclopedia?-Hilti 14:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
What makes you think you have a right to assert the things you have just said into this encyclopedia? And you did not use the word "bias" in your support of Wikipedia, but it shows. Karajou 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I haven't asserted anything as part of the encyclopedia; this is merely a talk page for discussion of the encyclopedia. Also, a perfect neutral point of view can only be tautologically and objectively not biased.-Hilti 15:05, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, lots of people who come here and claim "we are biased" have a bias of their own against us, and the argument you have made is just a repeat of what they have made. Karajou 15:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that we have a bit of a disagreement here. What Hilti wants is not to get into an argument about it. It seems to me that Hilti is simply trying to understand what you guys are trying to do with this site! Hilti of course you are biased towards wikipedia! You came here, on purpose, to try and get this site to explain why it is as good as wikipedia! Karajou, you have not given any reason as to why consevapedia is not biased yet. Making personal attacks against Hilti isn't helping anyone. In fact through your behavior, you have probably proven to Hilti that this is a biased and ridiculous site only concerned with it's own, one sided view. Is that what you wanted? Why don't we all just take a deep breath and talk without attacking each other!

--SeniorGomez 15:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Two things Mr. Gomez: I did not make an attack against Hilti, unless you think it's an attack to point out that she has her own bias, which everyone has to some form or degree about anything. Second, it's already obvious that this site is biased towards family values, Christian values, conservative values. Karajou 15:17, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
So I'm female? That's news to me... but back to the point: yes, that's obvious, but the initial point I was making was that this wiki purports to be truth when there are many others who would disagree and it does not reflect that, and until that changes, it is digusting as far as I am concerned.-Hilti 15:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
And I'm not trolling; I'm simply stating that I think that children who do have the reasoning powers to judge something as being false should not be made to read this biased wiki.-Hilti 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Nobody asked you or coerced you to read it. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:26, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
They should not have to read the bias in Wikipedia, by that logic as well. Karajou 15:26, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
You call this encyclopedia "misleading, xenophobic and dangerous", yet you provide no examples, then have the gall to demand that we prove there is no bias here? Any high school debate student will tell you that if you make a claim, you must support it with evidence. Until you do, you have no right to criticize us.--Conservateur 16:55, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Supreme Court strikes down racist Affirmative Action in schools

A Supreme Court victory for conservatives...

--Conservateur 17:01, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Will post. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Chris Benoit

Wikipedia was involved in the killing of Chris Benoit family?Jaques 20:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
No, Wikipedia editors made a couple of edits which hinted at Mrs. Benoit's death some eight hours before the police found out, and these editors are now targets of the investigation. Karajou 22:42, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Thats a dumb thing to do. Haha, they deserve to be caught.--Elamdri 03:15, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Read the article. Benoit killed his wife and son, and then hung himself. The person who editted the wikipedia article was probably just adding vandalism, and was unlucky to have struck so close to the truth. Sureal 09:45, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I think the implication of the story is that Benoit himself made the posting. He alledgedly didn't kill himself until a day or two after he murdered his family.--PeteVan 11:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Sureal, you need to read the history of the article and bounce the time of the posting against the time the cops arrived at the house. The fact of the matter is that he added info about Mrs. Benoit having died hours before the cops found out and discovered three dead bodies in the house. The police want to know exactly who this editor is, where he's at, why he did it, and how did he know about the deaths before the cops knew. Karajou 11:28, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
The user that added the comment later stated on a discussion at Wikinews (a sister project of Wikipedia) that he added the clause about Benoit's wife dying as personal speculation, which coincidentally turned out to be right. TigersRoar 13:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)


Why do we need a Wikipedia dedicated to false facts and biased views. I can understand if you wanted a family friendly information database, but this is not one of them. You trash people who disagree with your opinions and Wikipedia is not about that. It's about contributing your information in a neutral fashion.

I'm not trying to attack you guys, I'm just curious as to why you needed to start your own wikipedia. Why not a message board?

Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. We've documented 50 instances of bias, falsehoods, smears, errors, etc. in Bias in Wikipedia. Students and adults want a resource that is neutral to the facts, without liberal bias. Hence Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 21:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
50 articles out of 1,800,000+ ? Wow, that's almost 0.000027%! Maestro 01:47, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, try searching the remaining 1,800,000's a headache in itself! Karajou 01:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
We didn't waste our time on the countless Wikipedia pages that I would describe as junk, such as albums by rap artists, people who appeared in movies, obscure political figures, silly rock bands, video games, etc. Maestro, you can spend your time studying those Wikipedia entries if you like. Or simply use the "Random page" feature on Wikipedia and marvel at how much junk is retrieved.--Aschlafly 01:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
On Wikipedia, the users decide the content. It may not be scholarly, but it's what the contributers want. If you're not interested in the article, you don't actually have to read it. And I'm going to follow your advice. Ten random articles from Wikipedia:
  • Science Fiction Poetry Association
  • Galactic Radiation and Background (intelligence satellites)
  • Riemann tensor (general relativity)
  • 1954 in Canadia football
  • Nissan Skyline GT-R (automobile)
  • Académie Goncourt (French literary organization)
  • Footsteps in the Dark (Cat Stevens Album)
  • Kgalema Motlhanthe (South African politician)
  • Some garbage about Buffy fan fiction (okay, point for you)
  • Lake Afton (Kansas)

Are all these articles scholarly and academic? No. But I'd say most of them are things people are interested in. Things people might want to know about (except number 9). You want to keep CP aligned along certain guidelines. Not a thing wrong wtih that. But I don't see why WP is the devil just because it appeals to a wider range of interests. Ta ta. Maestro 02:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. I tried the same game, and got: 1)a video game, 2)a weekly Norwegian newspaper, 3)an obscure female college basketball player, 4)a small aircraft engine company, 5)a glowing entry on a pro-abortion doctor, 6)a list of municipalities in the Algerian province of Tizi Ouzou, 7)an obscure Danish philosopher, 8)the happenin' metropolis of Bayshore, FL, 9)a London DJ, and 10)a German writer of whom "not much is known" but who is "best known for his early-humanist poetry." I think Andy's got WP pegged...--PeteVan 08:47, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I got (1) Vietnamese musical instruments (2) compulsory sterilization (3) an amateur improv theatre troupe from Wisconsin (4) a list of films by a silent movie actress who died in 1917 (5) list of winners of a poetry prize (1986-2006) (6) a 2 liner about a 1929 Austrian novel (7) a 3 liner about a basketball player (1 season in NBA) (8) all about google book search (9) one liner about a town in peru (10) couple of lines about an indoor sports arena somewhere in Latvia. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree with maestro. on your main page there is a "breaking news" article about Wikipedia, trying to make them "look bad". umm. sounds to me that someone is jealous? wikipedia is a great source for information. ISN'T THAT WHAT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS? Albeit, it may not be all scholarly, but it is information. And on to the breaking news story on your front page. to quote "First, there is nothing to suggest subsequent edits weren’t made by people who read the first edit. What sounds like a conspiracy theory is actually a lone gunman scenario. Moreover, the term ‘editor’ to a non-Wikipedia user probably implies someone in a position of authority and oversite. However, the person in question was an anonymous user. In fact, anyone in the world could have made that edit! That is the equivalent of implying that an anonymous caller to a news tip line is a reporter." I expected you made this site and advertise it so to get positive attention, but all you are getting is negative.I think its time to get off your high horse and rethink your negative feelings toward wikipedia. or just keep your head in the sand and thumb up your....--qw3r7yju4n 11:18am EST June 29.

You claim we're being unscholarly? It was you who came here using "" as a source to back up your claims. That's a real authoritative source for someone of your education and intellegence to use, isn't it? Karajou 11:32, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I feel that I should point out that the very use of the name "Conservapedia" indicates a Conservative bias, therefore completely rendering the claim of neutrality moot, furthermore I find it extremely interesting that you are boycotting one site due to supposed bias, by creating a site which seems to covet, endorse, sanction, and otherwise partake in Indisputable bias, not to mention disinformation and other such acts. Oh, and Mr. Aschlafly, 89.569765% of all statistics are made up. --Locke 14:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Immigration Bill

This was actually President Bush's bill, one of his top priorities, but since it was voted down in congress it suddenly becomes Ted Kennedy's bill? I know he was the sponsor, but I don't think Bush is exactly cheering this news.Maestro 01:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT) Yahoo News

It's common knowledge that Ted Kennedy and his staff wrote the bill. The bill is named after Kennedy. Bush went along, but not even newly elected Democrats fell for this liberal stunt.--Aschlafly 11:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not just Ted Kennedy's bill, John McCain, Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham are also largely responsible for the bill in its current incarnation as well. The actual sponsor in this legislative cycle for the Senate is Harry Reid though. I don't neccesarily agree that bill is too liberal and that's why it failed. In fact, most hardcore liberals complained that it wasn't liberal enough and real conservatives complained that it wasn't conservative enough. I think that it was so strongly despised on the right and the left is more telling than anything. It was just a mish mash piece of bad legislation. Tordenvaer

Tordenvaer, we're not fooled here: Kennedy's staff wrote the bill. It contained liberal tricks that most Republicans are not even aware of yet. Sure, there are a few Republicans who tried to get on the bandwagon, but they are likely clueless about what was really in the bill. Newly elected Democrats stood up to Kennedy and voted against it, with devastating effect to this liberal effort. R.I.P. to another liberal fast one.--Aschlafly 12:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I have to say that I think you are letting complicit conservatives off the hook way too easily there. I would agree that a lot of the general public, both conservative or liberal, didn't know the particulars of the bill. I strongly disagree that the supporters in the Senate didn't know what was in the bill. This was not some quiet little bill that you could sign on to and make people happy. Given the extreme controversy surrounding this legislation, the supporters, both on the right and left, were fervent believers in this bill. Conservatives actually put in some interesting amendments, such as designating English as the offical language of the US. Most of the current bill was drawn from the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, known as the 'McCain-Kennedy Bill'. It was not just Ted Kennedy's staff who wrote it, John McCain's staff were equal partners in drafting the legislation. The President himself was an avid supporter of this bill. To lay the blame solely on the liberals is to ignore that quite a few conservatives dropped the ball on this one and did so willingly and with open eyes. I just hope that everyone involved in advancing the bill learns their lesson. Tordenvaer

Sorry, but you're wrong, because no one who supports this immigration bill can rightly be called a conservative. John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and any other GOP members who voted for/supported it are therefore liberal and are in the same category as Ted Kennedy.--Conservateur 17:26, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I thought that Bush was a strong supporter of it?[8] [9] [10] -- didn't he even pledge "I'll see you at the bill signing" when offering support for the bill? Does this mean that Bush isn't a conservative either? --Mtur 17:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Touche. You scored there.--Aschlafly 17:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)