Talk:Main Page/archive19

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Democrat Al Gore's son pleads guilty to possession...

...of marijuana and "other drugs". Yet another example of what a liberal upbringing will do to a person.

Ah--(ahem)--that's nice, but that is not what we mean when we say that we "will not lay off the Democrats." Our criticisms of Democratic Party politicians have their bases in:
  1. Public policy.
  2. Different views of mankind and the world.
  3. Demonstrable instances of hypocrisy.

So far as I know, Albert A. Gore III never once said that drugs were a bad thing. (Nor did he kill anyone in the course of the felony to which he has now pleaded guilty.) So if he gets arrested for drugs, and arraigned, that's not news. That's simply lame gossip.

As to the father, well, sure, a father bears some responsibility for a son's misbehavior. But that still doesn't make the son's misdemeanors--or even felonies--newsworthy.

Now if Albert A. Gore Junior had been taking drugs, and had been doing that while he was holding public office, that might have been newsworthy.

Bottom line: No, we will not be putting that item on the Front Page.--TerryHTalk 14:35, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Wrong headline media news Hillary

The headline Hillary Clinton in the News 20 Times More Than GOP Candidates is wrong. If you follow the link you will find a Pew research report [1] giving figures for the question Can you tell me the name of the candidate you’ve heard the MOST about in the news lately?. This doesn't mean that Hilary was in the news 20 times more often, it just means that she was remembered 20 times more often. One reason could be that she is in the news more often, but there could be various other reasons why people name her first. The high figures for Obama indicate that it could be due to the Hillary vs Obama theme, which might be more captivating than any news about Republican candidates. But as I said, the figures of the Pew Research center don't tell. The headline should read People remember Hillary 20 times better. Also, I wonder why the front page doesn't cite the Pew numbers directly. User:Order 31 July, 20:55

Being in the news more often doesn't mean you're a better candidate, don't forget. Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy is most particularly newsworthy because she's not only a woman running for president, but the wife of a former president. She's also competing with a black presidential candidate. To a lot of people, that's more interesting than anything most of the other candidates have to say right now. --JonathanDrain 14:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Did I say that she is a better candidate? Where? I said that people remember her better. And indeed it could have been because she is a woman, because people dislike her, because people like her, or because her campaign staff is better in getting the message across, or because people find the Obama-Hillary showdown more interesting than whether Thompson will run or not, or for whatever other reason. The study doesn't tell. What Is said is that the headline is wrong, and is still wrong as of today, while it would be easy to fix. User:Order 1 August, 11:44

Order, It's just your liberal opinion that the headline is wrong... and it stays. --Crocoite 21:49, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, another example of gross misrepresentation on the front page. "Newsbusters" has proven itself to be a joke. Still not sure how reporting on the Dow more than the GDP is "liberal" bias. Whatever. Clearly Conservapedia isn't interested in the facts. PortlyMort 21:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Where did I voice an opinion, especially where did I voice a liberal opinion? Calling someone a liberal is a poor substitute for an argument, especially when it is not a political argument. Can you tell me how the question on the questionnaire, relates to the headline on the frontpage? And can you tell me how much news on the frontpage helps Conservapedia, if a click on the source reveals that the editor who put it there didn't read the source carefully, or even made a mistake interpreting it. And I am not talking about the political interpretation, but about actually reading the captions. User:Order 1 August, 11:55

Order, let's discuss your last entry:

    • Where did I voice an opinion? How about "the headline is wrong". That's YOUR opinion.
Actually it is true, not an opinion. Read on.
    • Where did I voice a liberal opinion? How about "The high figures for Obama indicate that it could be due to the Hillary vs Obama theme, which might be more captivating than any news about Republican candidates". Sounds like a liberal opinion to me.
No, it isn't. You could ask people what is more interesting. Are they more curious about who will be the democratic contender, Hillary or Obama, or are they curious about whether Thompson decides to run or not. If the former is found more interesting, it could be the explanation that they remember Hillary and Obama better than Thompson. It just like people remember Paris Hilton better, than say Duncan Hunter; not because she is nicer, but because her story is more interesting. There is nothing liberal about this statement, its a hypothesis about why Obama and Hillary are remembered much more often. Your hypothesis is that it is because MSN mentions Hillary 20 times more often, but that is also just a hypothesis, and none of them is supported by the data. However the headline wrongly suggest that the data supports the second hypothesis.User:Order 1 August, 13:34
    • Your suggested headline "People remember Hillary 20 times better", is something a liberal would love to see - NOT a conservative. I have changed it to the new NewsBusters headline "More People See Hillary in the News Than Any GOP Presidential Candidate".
Sorry, but the data suggest that people do remember her 21 times better. Or if you want 21 times more people remember to have seen Hillary than say Thompson. Nothing liberal about that either. Its in the data. Don't quote the data if you don't like it. User:Order 1 August, 13:34
The MSM uses liberal bias to dominate the news favoring Democratic candidates, and naturally, people will hear about Hillary more often than Mitt. --Crocoite 22:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
This might very well be true. However the data doesn't say so. But the headline wrongly suggest it does. Can you point to a page, and preferably a table, with that information? I challenge you. User:Order 1 August, 13:34
Naturally. It just stands to reason.SumsUp 22:52, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, let's not forget that, campaigning aside, Hillary gets in the news frequently for being a high-profile Senator, while exactly is Mitt's job again? PortlyMort 22:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Portly, your liberal style is showing...
  • over-reliance on mockery
Didnt Crocoite get the last word?SumsUp 23:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
No, you did. Wait!? Now me. Bohdan
  • insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate
--Crocoite 23:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems like the headline has been fixed. thanks User:Order 2 August 2:11

Border Fence = Animal Killer!

I thought you guys might be interested in this. Illegal Immigrants versus the environment. Bucklesman 14:05, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

This article proves there are liberals in Mexico too. Cactus fences? --Crocoite 14:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Im sorry, but animals are tasty...perhaps animals caught up by the fence could be put to use somehow.SumsUp 23:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikia - "for-profit company"

From the Building a Wiki World article is this gem:

Late in the day, we find Wales at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He's about to give a lecture to a group of eager graduate students when one of the school's instructors bounds up to shake his hand. "I'll give you a brief introduction before you go on," he says, waving a piece of paper. "Just a bit of biographical information that I downloaded from Wikipedia." A look of mild alarm crosses Wales' face. "You'd better let me have a look at that first," he says. Sure enough, Wales' own Wikipedia entry contains an error, misstating his date of birth. The error, which stems from a mistake on Wales' birth certificate, is something of an inside joke among hard-core Wikipedians, who keep deliberately reintroducing it despite Wales' best efforts to correct the record.
--Crocoite 17:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Which of these is a crime in America?

A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine.
B) Burning the American flag.
C) Putting a Koran in a toilet.
Michelle Malkin gives the answer here --Crocoite 23:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Scary! Learn together 14:52, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Minor correction needed for the front page

The line actually should read "Wikimedia search engine to let users influence web results rankings". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine; the two are connected, but by no means the same thing. Also this consistent attack of Wikia as a "for-profit" company smacks of liberalism. Since when do conservatives sneer at people trying to make money through entrepreneurship? PortlyMort 09:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually I was wrong, it seems Wikia is not part of Wikimedia. I guess I sort of knew that. The headline should say "Wikia search engine to let users influence web results rankings". PortlyMort 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Lindsay McCreith Story Regarding Healthcare (and Michael Moore)

The sentence "He'd be dead now if he stayed within his Canadian health care system" is unfounded, and isn't mentioned in the cited article at all. In fact, the article states that he has low-grade astrocytoma, which is slow growing. Therefore I can only conclude that the sentence is what one might call a false and deceiving statement at worst, and a "speculative statement" at best.

Don't get me wrong, as a Canadian who works in the health care industry, I see the long wait times for MRI and surgeries, and it isn't correct for Moore to say (in an interview) that Canadians got the right idea about health care. However, using exaggeration and (let's face it) false statement is not the way to bring the message across. ATang 10:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, but Moore didn't praise Canada's health care system by any means in Sicko. Admittedly, he could've and probably should've done more to describe some of the negative aspects to the system, but in no way did he praise it or suggest that we should convert our system over to the Canadian one. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 13:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Wow, you'd better tell Peter Howell of The Toronto Star that he also misunderstood Moore's movie! He wrote about the movie, "Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo."[2]
After you complain to Howell, then let us know if we should still change our reference. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:20, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Isn't this the site that doesn't take journalists' opinions as fact? PortlyMort 14:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I wrote Mr. Howell a short letter with my grievances. I doubt I'll get a response. But seriously - such random sniping of prominent left-wingers hurts this site's reputation. What they say half the time rebuts itself; why intervene? I actually went to see sicko, and I urge everyone here to as well - not because I think you'll be persuaded to endorse socialized medicine, but simply so you can make your own critical analysis of the film without relying on others. Enough with the group think that's so rampant among us conservatives! We don't have to regurgitate every talking point we hear on Fox News... we're allowed to come to our own opinions about things. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 11:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It's been a day, and the speculative statement "He'd be dead now if he stayed within his Canadian health care system" is still up there. Does the Main Page not follow the same standards as the articles on Conservapedia? If not, it should, at the very least, follow "facts" - but I guess not, since most article links include a quip about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket (which is an opinion, not fact). ATang 11:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Folks, someone here tried to pretend that Sicko doesn't praise the Canadian system, and perhaps he thought he could fool us with that claim. But this is how to handle such claims: find a more credible liberal who tells the truth and thereby disproves it, which I did. That isn't regurgitating Fox News. I don't even think Fox News carried this story!--Aschlafly 11:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Man, how I regret bringing ΨtrykeЯ's comments together with my own.
ATang 12:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
The problem with your methodology, Andy, is that you can arbitrarily choose someone who shares your viewpoint and, upon finding that claim corroborated, declare it the de facto truth. Reality doesn't work like that, and reality is simple: Moore didn't praise or glorify the Canadian healthcare system. And no liberal that I'm aware is proposing we adopt it, except in the most generalized terms as "universal healthcare." Everyone agrees that it's a system mired by bureaucracy and loopholes and not suitable for our country.
Opinions don't trump facts. I'd pull up a quote from Moore saying that he wasn't trying to glorify the Canadian health care system, but then he'd just be practicing liberal deceit, right? ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 12:46, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Now Obama, the anti-war candidate, wants to invade another country

I have a feeling that after this announcement the liberals are going to drop him like a bad habit.

--Conservateur 10:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I hate to say it, but he's right. If Pakistan is sheltering terrorists, then we need to go and kill those terrorists. Osama is hiding there somewhere. Of course, troops aren't the only option. SSchultz 20:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Search Wikia Quote.

Jimmy Wales said ""When I opened Wikipedia with only three articles in it, it was a pretty bad encyclopedia".

That's the quotation from the front page - punctuation error included. This has nothing to do with the article, and is using the quote out of context. Wales was talking about the beginnings of Wikipedia, and is trying to compare it to his new startup project Search Wikia, which he says won't be very good at the beginning. The second line was omitted on the Main Page here. Twisting a quotation out of context isn't a proper practice here on Conservapedia, is it? ATang 11:17, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

How long before the Wikipedia volunteers wise up and revolt?

I say three months, tops, before that place goes down in flames.--Conservateur 11:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

A little optimistic there, eh?
I'm not very familiar with Wikia, but I thought most Wikipedia volunteers don't participate in the company's projects? And those of them who do get paid. I don't see why there would be a revolution. After all, there was some outrage about Wales overturning the vote on no-follow tags, but no "mass strike" or "resignations", nor any big "class action". I still edit there despite of that (unless I hear more about Wale's evil-doings). ATang 12:02, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
The brain drain has already been occurring at Wikipedia. Smart people don't like to volunteer their efforts only to be used and manipulated by a for-profit project benefiting others. If you don't believe me, look and see how few people volunteer at Microsoft or Google.
I agree that dumber people won't catch on for a while, and they're likely to continue toiling at Wikipedia. But they'll eventually wake up too.--Aschlafly 12:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Ouch, was that a thinly-veiled attack on my intelligence? =P
I don't have problem of his purported manipulations... I volunteer in a hospital (well, in Canada it's non-profit, but I'm sure there isn't a lack of volunteers in US hospitals), and I don't mind my efforts even if my hospital is for profit. The only source of frustration for me is battling vandalism - or worse, people who believe in false facts - but I am still optimistic about the future of Wikipedia. ATang 12:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I didn't intend to attack your intelligence. :-) I didn't even know if you are a Wikipedia volunteer. But, to your point, how often do you volunteer at a for-profit hospital or corporation? Not too much, I bet.--Aschlafly 12:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Yeah I usually only volunteer once a week at my hospital. ATang 13:45, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually a lot of people would probably like to work as intern at Microsoft or Google, even for free. But thats another issue, since both were always for-profit companies with excellent R&D departments. But you are quite right that the open source and free for all community can be fairly unforgiving. User:Order 2 augus 2:28 (AET)

I doubt that "a lot of people" would like to work at Microsoft or Google for free. If so, it is likely to be inversely proportional to intelligence.--Aschlafly 12:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Conservateur do you mean Wikipedia the free liberally biased encyclopedia or the equally evil, for-profit company Wikia, which aims to make money from user-generated content? EdDeTour 12:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry and but did you say at some point that Conservapedia has a lot of respect for scholars. It happens to be the case that some of the smartest and best educated computer scientists and software engineers work at Microsoft and Google, and a lots of very smart people would love to work with them. Even for free. You might not like their products, but their labs are world class. User:Order 2:45 (AET)

Working as an intern at Google or Microsoft isn't exactly "for free". You build connections and stack your resume, so even though there's no immediate monetary return, there is an increase in career potential. (This is also one of the reasons I volunteer at a hospital.) ATang 13:47, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Indeed, and thats exactly why a lot of people would love to do it. User:Order

I have to say I find it very strange the fuss that this site makes over the no-follow links decision at Wikipedia. There was a vote 2 years ago. About 150 people participated (out of many thousands of eligible accounts). It didn't really affect Wikipedia as much as it did other search engines, so it wasn't a huge issue. Does anyone really expect a big revolt about it? I was an active contributor at the time, and I didn't even know about the vote, and wouldn't have cared even if I did. It's a pretty minor issue. Why the big fuss here? PortlyMort 14:07, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

how exactly do you know that the "brain drain" is already occuring at Wikipedia? Dkips 14:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Deletions of discussions.

Today is the first time I heard that Conservapedia reported a user to the FBI. Did something funny happen, because the entire discussion gets deleted. I could understand that the sysops don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation, but I can't understand why a fairly benign discussion gets deleted twice. [3][4] Did anything that was said in this discussion in violation with Conservapedia policy? User:Order 2 August 2:22(AET)

Order, vandalism is obviously wrong and against the law, and flagrant vandalism has been reported to the FBI. Obviously the investigation is not a topic for discussion on this main talk page or anywhere else in this encyclopedia project.--Aschlafly 12:26, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

This explain the bit. Thanks for the clarification. User:Order 2 August 2:38(AET)

Today in History

It's been blank for the last couple of days. What happened?--Offeep 13:03, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Apparently, nothing. U2 13:15, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Maybe you could make some suggestions for it.--Conservateur 14:55, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Question about the Murdoch/WSJ comment

I am confused by the comment "The newspaper industry is collapsing before our eyes." Was this intended to mean that Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ is also sign of the industry collapse? Or is it just a comment about the state of things in general? Thanks to whoever can clear this up for me.--Conservateur 18:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

To latch on to Conservateur's enquiry: how can the owner of the most often cited news source on this site (Fox News) buying a conservative newspaper be bad for conservatives? Or for the newspaper industry? Wouldn't that make it more appealing to conservatives who rail against liberal bias in the main stream media? Jazzman831 18:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Misleading front page news NYT

The quote belonging to the head line New York Times inadvertently condemns Democrats wrongly suggests that it is a NYT quote. However, it is a quote by Thomas E. Brewton. NYT did not write these words, and suggesting otherwise is misleading. The frontpage should mention Brenton. Better would even if the front page would link directly to the NYT article that inadvertently condemns Democrats, rather than to a comment of an unsourced NYT statement. User:Order 2 august 9:42

Can we even confirm it's inadvertent? Kazumaru 20:33, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

The words you're quoting come from the body of the opinion piece. As per long-established grammatical rules of grammar, the author alerts the reader to the NYT quote he's writing about by using what are called 'Quotation Marks.' These are like two little 'ticks' placed high up on the line, before and after the material that is referenced from the other source - they look like this --> ". You put one before the material you're quoting from, and one after. That indicates that the author didn't write the material between the marks. They're very helpful, and you'll find careful use of them (and other useful punctuation like commas, semi-colons and brackets, for example), will greatly simplify the points you are trying to explain. Careful not to get confused though, there's a lot to learn in the world of punctuation and grammar. BrianRobertson 20:54, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Riiight. Which "opinion piece"? The link on the main page goes to AN opinion piece that is the source of the quote. The source of the quote, in turn, quoted excerpts of a NYT editorial (opinion piece). The way the main page is worded as well as the quoted material, makes it sound as if the quote came from the NYT. U2 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

A very good observation about the Quotation Marks BrianRobertson. FYI over-reliance on mockery is Liberal Style. Anyway, this is exactly how I figured out that it wasn't a NYT quote. The first paragraph is a quote. The second is. Both unsourced BTW, but allegedly from the NYT. The third to seventh paragraph aren't, but are an opinion by Brewton. And the rest is a quote from the WSJ. The quote on the front page is from the 5th paragraph, and not from NYT. And that is exactly why the front page is misleading. User:Order 18:00

I see that the front page still hasn't been fixed. Putting a misquotation on the front page can be done by mistake. Leaving it there uncorrected for more than a day is grossly negligent and reflects badly on every editor who as edited the front page in the last 24 hours. User:Order 3 August, 14:15 (AET)

Uhm, yes - please fix this totally misleading quote on the front page. It reflects incredibly poorly indeed on Conservapedia that this ridiculously basic journalistic error has survived on the Front Page of this site for a few days. AnneUulmehlmehay 12:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

It was changed. The original title was "New York Times Inadvertently Damns Democrats". The current title we have, and the link connected with are, are to a specific New Media Alliance article, and we don't feel it is necessary to change it on demand. Have a nice day. Karajou 13:00, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I'd advise you to check that again. Read the comments above - the NYT didn't say what you're claiming they said. The author of the blog did. BrianRobertson explained the concept above. AnneUulmehlmehay 13:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I did check it again, and the author of the opinion piece that is the source of the title on our page used it rather correctly in describing what the NYT has written, and we are using it here. Karajou 13:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Sigh. I guess I'll have to explain again. The text you are attributing to the NYT on the Main Page was not written by the NYT, but by the author of the piece you are linking to. Your title could read "Blogger considers NYT to have inadvertently condemned Democrats", for example. AnneUulmehlmehay 13:36, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

No, I'll have to explain once and for all: Thomas Merton is saying that the New York Times has inadvertently damned the Democrats. According to his analysis, the newspaper is complaining about an "ill" (i.e., factory farmss) which are the result of a farm subsidy policy championed by Democrats. Now do you understand? --Ed Poor Talk 14:05, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

You've said it yourself - "Thomas Merton is saying that the New York Times has inadvertently damned the Democrats". That's your headline right there, and you won't look so unprofessional any more. AnneUulmehlmehay 14:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

What part of "we agree with him" don't you understand? ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 14:34, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Did you click on the link Ed on the front page to the quoted article? If you did I wonder if you still agree with the statement that the "NYT said 'Lest we forget, this whole mess originated ...'"? User:Order 3 August 11:11 (AET)

I've been a 'lurker' here for a few months now, as I'm professionally interested in the beliefs of extremists, and I've never felt much like diving in to the huge array of controversies before. But I have to confess, something about this one in particular has really floored me - the standard of editors at this supposedly 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' is so appalling, your level of intellectual achievement so low, your egos so over-inflated, that you cannot see that Order, U2, Brian, and Anne are all absolutely correct, and your Main Page headline is completely misleading. Quite, quite extraordinary, and a very good example of why 'write a book to learn, don't read a book' is no slogan for a quality education. You should be ashamed of yourselves. DrFrankMitchell 16:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

"Dr." Frank Mitchell, how about first learning that "i before e" in "achievement", and then after you learn that you can lecture us on how we should be "ashamed of" ourselves? See liberal style, with the last pointed just added with you in mind. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:40, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, your error above points to the inadvisability of using a spell-checker as a crutch on the one hand and as a club in the other. Your spell-checker won't catch errors like the one you made above. While I know you're not a big fan of the passage, it may be that you begin to see the wisdom of "judge not lest you be judged," though in fact I rather doubt you can make the cognitive leap necessary. In truth though I don't make any judgments about your intelligence based souly on your imperfect mastery of the English language; We all make mistakes. Now that we've got those formalities out of the way, perhaps you care to educate us on why you think a site that purports to be reliable can allow an obvious smear like the one described above remain long after it has been pointed out, repeatedly and in tiresome detail while forgiving any errors I've made here through carelessness and failure to run this post through my own spell-checker. In other words, no further deflections or personal attacks please.Bafi 19:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Compared to a spelling mistake on the front page, it reflects badly on Conservapedia to wrongly attribute a quote to a source that didn't say it. If you think that NYT wrote this sentence give proof. This is a challenge.

You probably keep it on the front page as it is because you think that it makes a few Liberals angry, and it probably does, but the normal folks just click on the link and think to themselves: "This site calls itself trustworthy?" If there would exist anything like a mortal sin for an encyclopedia, wrong attribution of quotes would be one of it. Spelling mistakes, especially on talk pages, are at best venial sins in comparison. Peace be upon you. User:Order 3 August 10:50 (AET)

Order, if you read above you'll see that the defenders of this bit believe that, if parsed very carefully and with correct interpretation of their weasel words, the quote of CP's front page is not misleading. The issue is that if you read the quote without guile, it is misleading and dishonest.

While I don't want to get into a taxonomy of spelling error and usage sins with you, I do agree that mistakes on the discussion pages should be overlooked. In fact, in the larger world of web etiquette (sic . . . hehe . . that doesn't look right) it is considered rude to fixate on these errors. The issue here, however, is that Aschlafly has adopted the habit of using these minor errors as a basis for dismissing the poster's points out of hand. i.e. to Aschlafly, if you misspell a word you are unintelligent and unworthy of a response. The irony, petty as it is, is that he commits errors as well and indeed made an error in usage (pointed when he presumably meant point) even as he was chiding a user for failing to apply the "i before e except after c" rule directly above. I've spent too long on this already but did not want to be misunderstood. Bafi 09:45, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikia being for-profit

I have to question why Wikia, which is a separate venture all together, being for-profit somehow means that Wikipedia is terrible. What are Wikipedia's users supposed to wise up for? That Wales needs money and isn't willing to sell out for corporate adverts on Wikipedia? The demon! Kazumaru 20:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Jimbo has been selling his data mining from WP for years. So while not adverts, he has certainly be profiting from the data he sells. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Source? Kazumaru 00:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
      • You do realize that all of wikipedia is available for download so that anyone who cares to do the work themselves can datamine to thier heart's content [5]? Which sort of poke big holes in the nefariousness of his data mining? Dkips 11:30, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Wikipedia is simply using volunteers to build traffic to enrich the owners of Wikia. The less intelligent Wikipedia volunteers don't realize that yet.--Aschlafly 00:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Source? Kazumaru 00:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure that I understand what's so horrible about this. Some people might contribute to Wikipedia, Conservapedia, Memory Alpha (there are oodles of these things now) for the pure pleasure of contributing to something collaborative. I contribute to both Conservapedia and Wikipedia and I honestly don't give a toot who makes money from it or why.--Porthos 10:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, one critic pretends Wikia owners aren't exploiting Wikipedia profit for gain, and another critic says he doesn't care if they do! Well, if the volunteers don't care, then why isn't there a frank and open discussion of how Wikipedia is being used to help the for-profit Wikia? After all, Porthos implies that wouldn't affect the volunteers. (Of course it would)

The reality is that Wikipedia is designed to boost traffic. The gossip, the porn, the silly links, etc. Traffic, rather than learning, is the goal there. And why? Because more traffic for Wikipedia makes Wikia a more profitable endeavor.--Aschlafly 11:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

That is an interesting hypothesis but it fails in a number of respects: other wikis and a variety of other volunteer projects are also not given the nofollow tags. This isn't anything about Wikia, this is that the foundation is interested in promoting Wikis in the general case. JoshuaZ 11:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not certain that Wikipedia ever stated that its main goal was learning or education. It certainly does strive to be a repository for "all knowledge" or some such overly ambitious enterprise, but I don't think it was established with the same goal that you had in mind when you set this place up.--Porthos 12:37, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Joshua, your statement is wrong. Wikipedia's "nofollow" policy does favor its for-profit Wikia. This has long been clearly and thoroughly explained in our Wikipedia entry, which I quote below. The citation is in our Wikipedia entry Godspeed. From Wikipedia:
Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.--Aschlafly 13:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Again, you seem to be missing the point. There a variety of wikis that don't get the no-follow tags, not just Wikia. Wikia simply happens to be the one which you notice since Jimbo runs it. If you want, I can give a full list of the sites which don't get no-follow tags(it's rather long). JoshuaZ 19:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Expanding on my earlier comment, the full list of exceptions can be found here. As you can also see from the talk page of that article, the determination of what goes on the list has minimal input from Jimbo. In fact, I have some emails discussing this topic with Jimbo earlier in which he didn't even know where the list was or how to find it. As far as I can tell, the notion that this is being done by Jimbo is simply only asserted by an unreliable blog of someone who was unhappy that his personal website couldn't get traffic boosting from Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 00:15, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Joshua's additional comment does not change the fact that Wikipedia favors the for-profit Wikia, and this policy overruled the vote of the Wikipedia volunteers. At most Joshua's link shows that a few liberal sites are also favored by Wikipedia's policy. Please see my comments below for further discussion. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Ok, you seem to be missing a few points: 1) Wikipedia isn't the only part of the Wikimedia foundation. That's why the interlink list is on the meta-page. For technical reasons all the interwiki links need to be the same for all the projects, so it wasn't the choice of the English wikipedia. If the software is modified it might be possible to break it down by project, in which case the issue will become .en's business. And again, this isn't favoritism to for-profit sites, this an emphasis on wikis. Many of the wikis linked to are for profit. The claim, that Wikia is somehow singled out for Jimbo's benefit (which is the really relevant issue) is simply not true. I'm also puzzled by your claim that the list somehow shows yet more favoritism of "liberal sites" since I don't see much on the list that would be actively construed as liberal. To take a random example, I have trouble seeing the Battlestar Galactica wiki as a "liberal site". JoshuaZ 00:43, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Gee, Joshua, do you also "have trouble seeing" how EcoReality and SwingWiki are liberal sites??? Notice how there isn't a single conservative site on the list???
By the way, I'm not the one who originally pointed out that a Wikia owner overrode the vote of the Wikipedia volunteers to enact a policy that favors the for-profit Wikia. Perhaps Wikipedia admins can continue to fool Wikipedia volunteers for a while, but not indefinitely. Wikipedia is not fooling anyone here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Ok, first, I suggest you may want to reread my sentence. My comment was that I did not "see much on the list that would be actively construed as liberal" not that there were no liberal sites. You have picked two examples one which I'm puzzled by. I suggest you take a look at Swingwiki, I don't know what you have in mind but I suspect that you drew conclusions from the title and whatever you associate the word "swing" with. It is a Java development wiki. Second, note that there are also a variety of others such as a WikiChristian. Note that neither Dkosopedia or Conservapedia is currently included. You could of course if you want request Conservapedia be added. All you need to do is go to the talk page. So it seems to me that the claim of this list being somehow liberal holds about as much water as the claim that it somehow is designed to send traffic to Wikia. That is, less water than a leaky bucket after a few months in a desert. JoshuaZ 17:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Joshua, your comments go far off topic. The title of this section is about how Wikia is for-profit, and how the the Wikia owner(s) overruled the overwhelmingly majority vote of the volunteer Wikipedia editors, and instead installed preferences for the for-profit Wikia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:54, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
Andrew, the comment was in references to your statement that the list linked to showed that "it most Joshua's link shows that a few liberal sites are also favored by Wikipedia's policy" and your use of Swingwiki and Evowiki as examples. A response to that claim is no more off-topic than that claim, and the point that a large variety of different sites are in the interwiki map seems to have been not well refuted. JoshuaZ 22:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
Joshua, the title of this thread is "Wikia being for-profit," and your comments have strayed way off topic. My comment was simply a criticism of how your cite to interwiki map did not support your argument. You then completely ignored the topic of this thread and created an entirely new discussion about the (lack of) balance in the interwiki map. That's off-topic. Either speak to the topic here or start a different discussion somewhere else. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:53, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
I still can't quite understand this obsession with the nofollow tags dispute. Very few people at Wikipedia care much about it, and for good reason. Nevertheless, you seem to labor under the misconception that Wikipedia exists solely to boost traffic for Wikia, which is clearly not the case. By that logic every single external link from every single wikipedia page that goes to any .com page is exploiting Wikipedia for commercial gain. I, for one, see nothing wrong with Jimmy Wales realizing that when he gave Wikipedia to the non-profit Wikimedia foundation he gave away a billion dollars, and wanting to use a similar concept to make some money. It's called capitalism, and it's generally something conservatives support. Now, if he chose to start putting ads in Wikipedia (which could make him a few hundred million practially overnight) then I think you would see a revolt. But he wisely chose not to. PortlyMort 14:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your repeated and wholly unfounded smears about strangers' intelligence aside, you seem to discount that some people contribute to Wikipedia simply because the project, a freely available compendium of all human knowledge, is worth doing and aren't particularly concerned about the wikia issue. Dkips 15:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
If you were right, then Wikipedia leaders would be up-front and admit the current and future ways that Wikipedia will favor the for-profit Wikia, to the benefit of a few powerful people at Wikipedia. But obviously that disclosure is not happening. Joshua, whom I think is a Wikipedia admin, states above that "This isn't anything about Wikia". That has just been shown to be false.--Aschlafly 15:14, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
See my above comment (which you seem to have ignored), nofollow tags are not put on for a number of different wiki projects. Wikia is included in that set because it is a wiki, not because Jimbo runs it. As I said, if you want I can give you the full list. JoshuaZ 22:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Your reply doesn't make sense (just in case you were trying to make sense) and obviously doesn't address the efforts of altruistic editors. Dkips 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Even altruistic editors don't like being deceived and overruled for the financial benefit of a privileged few.--Aschlafly 22:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

AP Scores

Okay, those AP and SAT scores are pretty impressive. I just wanted to congratulate all the students on them! DanH 00:41, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

That average AP score is very impressive. Bohdan 00:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks much, Dan and Bohdan! Your encouragement to the students during the spring deserves credit too. I hope you can participate in one or more of the fall courses, which will just be similar to what we have been doing (e.g., posting and editing files, plus answering some students' questions in the protected namespaces to be created for the courses). In Christ,--Aschlafly 00:46, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I'd be more than willing to help in that manner. My major is Secondary History Education, so it kind of fits with that. DanH 00:52, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

That would be great, Dan! Actually, online education is becoming so big now, I would expect employers to like applicants who have some experience in it. In another 20 years, most education may be done online. In Christ,--Aschlafly 00:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
Many corporations and companies, including my own, actually offer employee incentives for online continuing education, including courses offered in degree programs, such as by Chapman College, etc. The future is arriving faster and faster! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 02:35, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick question, are the SAT/AP/CLEP scores from the actual tests or from the tests this site offers? If they are from actual tests, it certainly shows that there are some quality educators or very good students here. Sahim 08:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

The SAT/AP/CLEP scores are official, and are from the actual tests put out by ETS. I appreciate your compliments very much, but would add that I think the teaching approach taken here as more to do with this success than the teacher and the students themselves. The classes are open to all students, for example, and there is no pre-screening to select very good students as done in private school and in honors courses in public school. In Christ,--Aschlafly 11:10, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
Now I just learned something. Apparently ETS writes the SAT and AP exams, but not the CLEP exam. That helps explain why the the CLEP exam does not have as much liberal bias as the other two. I wonder who does develop the CLEP exam? I don't think the College Board develops it, though it does administer it. In Christ,--Aschlafly 11:31, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
Just out of curiosity, in what ways are the SAT and AP exams politically biased? I've heard the claims of racial bias, but never a political or ideological one. From my experience with over 10 AP exams and several SAT/PSAT/NMSQT sessions, they are nothing more than comprehensive tests. Heck, I guess I could concede my AP Calc BC test was biased against me because it had a preference for annoying integrals of equations in polar form, but that's all I can see. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 11:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)


I know I should give up trying to get anything changed on the Main Page, but some of these "newsbusters" links are just stupid. It does no credit to Conservapedia to link itself to that group; you might as well post a link saying "look, a bunch of retarded children agree with us!" The piece on news anchors takes the cake. Katie Couric makes a quip about gas prices saying that she needs a loan to fill up her tank, and newsbusters comes up wiuth the scoop that (prepare for absolute shock) Couric actually doesn't need a bank loan to buy gas (next stop: Pulitzer)! I guess these geniuses have yet to realize that not everything even spoken is to be taken literally (ever hear of hyperbole? No? Didn't think so). Even their Brian Williams example, which has a slight basis in fact, is deeply flawed. Williams is critical of the money some CEOs receive. Pointing out that he makes as much as the average CEO is hypocritical only is he's critical of the average CEO pay, when it's the $100 million bonuses for running a company in the ground that people are riled up about. PortlyMort 10:02, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Portly, since you enjoy the NewsBusters articles so much, here's some more:
Have a great conservative day! --Crocoite 10:16, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, taking a quick look at some of those examples it seems they're somewhat better. Still doesn't explain why the most blatantly stupid thing newsbusters seems to have written is on the front page. PortlyMort 10:36, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Ninth Curcit Court

Is there a link to this story?--Rube 15:35, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

This story is an exclusive for Conservapedia. We do run exclusive stories periodically. I'll see if I can find a link to the decision itself. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:47, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

NY Daily News Misleads About Bush Linking Iraq and 9/11

I found this quote from George W. Bush and was wondering how he isn't making a connection between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda/9-11

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

< >

Any thoughts/opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillOhannity (talk)

  • "As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said". --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:06, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Funny Mark Twain quote

I don't know if this would be good for the daily historical quote, but I got a laugh out of it:

"People who don't read the newspapers are uninformed. People who do read the newspapers are misinformed." -- Mark Twain

--Conservateur 11:19, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. Thanks. I've posted your funny (and true) quote on the front page. In Christ--Aschlafly 11:59, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Whoops! I was going from memory and had the wording wrong. In the interest of accuracy, here is the exact quote:

"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

Apologies.--Conservateur 12:47, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

undocumented immigrant murders three college students

Remember those three college kids killed in Newark, with an additional student being listed in stable condition after suffering knife and gunshot wounds.

The murderer was an undocumented immigrant from Peru, according to CNN (see 9th paragraph).

--Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just watching this as well. So sad.--Elamdri 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be worth noting on the main page that he was Peruvian, not Mexican. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 14:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
That's fine, Hoji. Please fix it up how you think best at Template:Mainpageright. I don't have an ax to grind here, except to convey the truth about a profound tragedy. God help the victims and their families.--Aschlafly 14:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Fox says it too, in the first paragraph [6]. Karajou 14:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)