Talk:Main Page/archive3

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I hate the new format. I think that a white background is easier to read than a blue background.

I hate the new format. I think that a white background is easier to read than a blue background. It just makes sense since white and black print gives better contrast than blue and black print. I also like to see the totals as far as views to a page. Conservative 16:52, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Well, if you use Firefox, you can change stuff fairly easily (see my User page). Technically, you should also be able to include your own CSS here, but that didn't seem to work when I tried it (possible that I did something wrong, but the Stylish add-on did the trick, so I won't test it much further). But what do you mean with the last sentence? --Sid 3050 17:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
There use to be a counter at the bottom of each page to show how many views an article got. Secondly, not everyone has FireFox or other means to change colors. Wikipedia and TheoWiki and CreationWiki all use the white background. It is easier to read. White and black print gives greater contrast. Conservative 17:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Don't get me wrong, I'm also no major fan of the blue background (even though it irked me personally less than some other changes). Just pointing out possible solutions in case that this doesn't change.
You would be able to change your personal CSS if User CSS was enabled (as mentioned here). However, it appears that this is (currently) not the case right now. --Sid 3050 18:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe my eyes are weird but I'm actually having an easier time reading since the change. Sulgran 22:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I guess it's a given that the (subjective) impression varies, depending on taste and viewing preferences. I mean, the current layout and color scheme was created by a user (I guess) who hopefully didn't just go "OMG LOL letz throw in random colorz!", so of course there will be quite a few people who embrace the change. :) --Sid 3050 23:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
The article headings really should be left-aligned; having them centered looks rather bizarre. --Rexislexis 16:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New layout and some quite serious site concerns

Conservative mentioned in the section above that the view count is gone, and while pondering about that, I noticed that quite a few more things are gone. Aside from the "MediaWiki" button, pages now lack:

  • A disclaimer link
  • Copyright information and link
  • Privacy policy link

After some more thinking, I realized something worse: Aside from the under-construction license suggestion, we don't seem to actually have any of those things right now! Anybody know what's going on here? --Sid 3050 18:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

After restoring the footer section via User CSS, I realize that Conservapedia has a privacy policy at least, even though it should probably be updated to include the bit about giving all your info out in case of vandalism. However, my initial issue still stands: Why is the footer being hidden? The modified CSS even has sections that change the looks of the footer, but then it just hides it completely. --Sid 3050 22:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Added the Bible verse

Yesserie bob...began the Bible verse to start a new tradition, and it has my favorite, Isaiah 18:41. More ways to improve the site are happening right now. Karajou 18:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh. Didn't notice the new section when I made my comment. What other sorts of "improvement" are you talking about? Or is it a secret? *cocks head* --Sid 3050 18:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I've been asked, and that part's in my user talk page. But I really didn't have any other plans for the main page at all, and it was a debate between me and the mirror whether or not to add just the verse. The I picked my fav...and there it is. Karajou 19:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I disagree with it being called the "Bible verse" of the day. Couldn't we have general words of wisdom? Of course, this would often encompass Bible verses (just not John 3:16, way too tacky), but if we find a really, really great Conservative-inspired quote, it wouldn't be restricted. Dunno, just a suggestion. --Hojimachongtalk 01:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's a good suggestion by Hojimachong. Perhaps a conservative quote of the day that could include the Bible and conservative thinkers?--Aschlafly 01:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Like, by default it's a Bible verse, but if somebody finds some good Words of Wisdom, it won't be restrictive of adding these. --Hojimachongtalk 01:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It should just be "Quote of the day", otherwise it's a serious turn-off to non-Christian conservatives like me (yes, they do exist). Someone doesn't need to be Christian to be a conservative. Otherwise this is just a biblepedia. --Todd 11:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea of a daily Biblical quote...but a daily quotation from a conservative thinker, historical person is also a good idea. Karajou 12:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I hate to be a killjoy, but today's "Historical Quote of the Day" ("It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."--George Washington) is bogus. GW never said that (which isn't to say that he wasn't a religious guy, but that particular quote isn't his). WJThomas
I pulled that quotation from Halley's Bible Handbook by Dr. Henry M. Halley, who has quoted a number of individuals in support of the Bible. But, although I believe GW made this quote, there was no source in Halley's book for my next quote will have a source one can go to. You're not a killjoy...just someone wanting it right! Karajou 21:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The block where both quotes are now does look a little plain. Any way to spruce it up? I think the main page should be a standout attraction, so to speak. Karajou 13:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe a small photo of the quoted person? And perhaps drop the Bible quote down to the bottom, so that the photo is higher up, more eye-catching?WJThomas
Yes! There's a photo of Lincoln I uploaded File:Lincoln.png which could be used. Karajou 10:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
How about a box within, containing the quote and a pic? It wouldmake the site visually better looking. Karajou 10:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe...You'd have to play with it a little to see how it looks. It might be too "busy"--a box within a box within a box...WJThomas

I just wanted to comment that in general I think that it is a great idea, and find it wonderful that there are still some of us out there who do not have to bow to our national obsession with "political correctness;" though the Supreme Court has adopted the wall-of-seperation principle, between church and state, that does not mean that all political or other informational private intities also have to adopt the same stance. ---Fair-balenced 19:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello to all. It has been a few days since I’ve been able to visit. I want to thank you for using the Bible verse of the day. Like I said in my last message, I respect the fact that others may not be Christian, as I am. However I think that in our freedom, we as Americans have fallen and are in danger of falling deeper into our age old trap of discrimination. While I do agree that we need to be respectful of the fact that not all Americans, and yes even some Conservatives, are Christians, I also feel that we need to be careful not to try and eliminate Christianity. Back in the times of Egyptian pharos, when one new family would come into power you at times would see that family, or supporters there of, chiseling out the names and images of the past families, and erasing them from the makeup of their nation. I feel that is the sad undertaking that we are undergoing in America today with Christianity. Let’s be respectful of those who are not Christian but still wish to have a daily word of encouragement, but in doing so, let’s not forbid those who are Christian from also receiving their daily word of encouragement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing both. I am very grateful, not only as a Christian, but as an American, to see that this consideration has taken place here on Conservapidia. Thank you. – Constitution 08:41, 22 March 2007

A poll requested by Aschafly regarding the new color format

I hate the new format. I think that a white background is easier to read than a blue background. It just makes sense since white and black print gives better contrast than blue and black print. I think we should have the same color background as CreationWiki, Wikipedia which is a white background and black print.

With that being said ASchafly has asked me to conduct a poll about this matter. Please enter your vote and make any additional comments in the additional comments section.

Against the new color format:

  • Find it distracting and hard on the eyes. Tmtoulouse 17:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I hate the new format. Conservative 17:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • I like it the way it is now, without the curvyness background. It looks very clinical and professional. --BillOReillyFan 17:36, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Ouch. Ouch ouch ouch. Geekman314(contact me) 19:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Please! The new format is horrible. ColinR 12:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I object to the new format. Blue is the color that symbolizes the democrat party. This is a conservative Republican wiki, so if it's going to have a background color, it should be red.--Conservateur 12:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

For the new color format:

  • I like the blue. I wonder why? Navy Nuke 17:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The New format is wonderful. The light blue background is pale enough to contrast quite sufficiently with the black letters. It helps us to look different from Wikipedia, and matches the logo nicely. ~ SharonS Talk! 17:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • It is easier to read now. Sulgran 17:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Blue is nice...I have my background in WPs set to a lightish green. Much easier on the eyes. I'm not surprised Conservative "hates"'s new. Crackertalk 12:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Additional comments:

I personally like a white for general content articles, but then maybe a slightly different color for project pages (like wikipedia). It's a visual cue, but then not everything is like that. Also, I also like a solid background color rather than the current background image. --Ymmotrojam 17:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

...why don't you just switch back to Monobook? --Sid 3050 17:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I do use that, but just trying to offer a suggestion ;-). --Ymmotrojam 17:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I was not aiming that question at you in particular. Hence the lack of indentation of my initial post. But since we're talking now, don't you think it's a bit too bold to just vape the background image from all skins like that (unless I missed the discussion that led to the removal, which is possible)? I mean, sure, nothing I couldn't fix locally, but still. --Sid 3050 17:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Keep the new format, make people aware (via heavy linkage) of how to configure monobook.css to make the formatting different. --Hojimachongtalk 18:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I like the new scroll logo. It is very midieval.--Jack 18:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Has User CSS been enabled? --Sid 3050 18:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the rule should be that is has to look different from Wikipedia and similar sites. Maybe add some pastels! Karajou 19:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Overall the color schemes are good, however the new colors on the diff pages is horrendous. Also, the coding seems to be backwards on the article, discussion, etc tabs. The tab you're on should be at the front, not behind like it is now (indicated by the line at the bottom of the tab). Jrssr5 10:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Let's have the front page be Red, White and Blue, no? GodisGreat 15:22, 21 March 2007 (PST).


I'm going to create another archive. Geekman314(contact me) 19:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

IRC channel

Cracker and I have created an IRC channel, #conservapedia, for - what else - Conservapedia. I would like to see some activity, of which the most thus far was Cracker and I discussing sociocultural issues that were completely irrelevant to Conservapedia. Of course, that's part of the reason it exists. Get an IRC client, and log on. I hope to see you there. Geekman314(contact me) 19:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

It's on freenode, BTW. Geekman314(contact me) 22:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


Since there is no copyrighting in effect, I think that getting a GFDL or Creative Commons license would be a wise decision. ColinR 14:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want to use a license, use , GFDL is not a good license. Noodles 23:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


I know this isn't wikipedia, but isn't it in poor taste there to remove and/or block people for comments on talk pages? Talk pages are just for that, talking. You can disagree or dislike something they write, but it's not an article, so in my opinion censoring comments is wrong. (I'm referring to this diff. l33t speak isn't offensive. Jrssr5 23:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

List of Presidential candidates in incomplete.

The list of candidates on the main page is incomplete.

Review Republican presidential candidates: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee.

As of today 2007-03-19, the registered candidates for the Republican party are:

Samuel Brownback (R) Rudolph Giuliani (R) Mike Huckabee (R) Duncan Hunter (R) John McCain (R) Ron Paul (R) Mitt Romney (R) Tom Tancredo (R) Tommy Thompson (R)

To see the list of official candidates:

London Metro Newspaper

Congratulations, Conservapedia appeared in todays free newspaper Metro. The article was on page 3 of the newspaper and ridiculed Conservapedias biased information. Jennisuk

This is how I heard about this site. Had a quick look round in my lunch hour. Wow ! Do you really believe this rubbish (I found the article or marsupials particularly perplexing) or are you hoping to influence some hypothetical fools who may be wandering about in cyberspace ? Obviously one hears something about the religious right in the media etc, but I couldn't really believe it had got this extreme. How many contributors/readers do you guys have ?

Over 3000 contributors and over 4 million page views, and growing quickly. Our contributors are from all across the ideological spectrum, as are our readers. How about enlightening us by adding some factual information that you think we lack here? We're an open-minded group, and I trust you will be also.--Aschlafly 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the invite - I'll certainly consider it. Whilst I was shocked by the extremness of your views, I am impressed by your honesty. Most christians I've spoken to flim-flam to the nth degree, when confronted by a scientific fact or popular ethical stance like, for example, evolution or sexual equality they simply re-interpret the bible to suit. You seem to be able to stick steadfastly to your faith whatever the evidence or peer-pressure. I'm not sure if this is a good thing but it certainly does make an impression.
Asch, as long as you refuse to allow open debate on dinosaur, Theory of evolution, et al, you won't be an open minded group. Your editors may be from all across the spectrum, but you and a few others make darn sure that views that disagree with your own don't make it onto article pages.--AmesG 10:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, very few pages are locked, and even those pages have talk entries. The few examples of locking were the result of what became a huge distraction to our efforts on 5000 other pages. I have unlocked several pages. Also, please keep in mind that this is an alternative to Wikipedia, and attempts to make our entries look like Wikipedia's are pointless. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschla, Is your Wiki not an answer to the accidental bias in a few of Wikipedia's pages? Surely the creation of a purposefully biased wiki even worse? (read "conservative encylopedia" on front page) --Mj 11:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The blasphemy may be viewed here (not for the faint hearted).
"And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities." (Acts 26:11)
BillyBoy 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Things you disagree with aren't blasphemy. And sometimes, they might be right.--AmesG 10:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm in agreement with AmesG that the controversial articles need to be opened up. You can have 3000 contributors but if only a handfull can edit, total numbers don't matter. Jrssr5 11:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Legal Warning

I was just wondering why the legal warning has been taken down. I was wondering the legality of a threat of prison time for profanity and was going to say something but then it got removed. Any ideas? Dommccas

It was removed because it was felt to be too "harsh," even though the warning still stands. Conservapedia Webmaster 14:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the threats should be restored even though the statutes cited don't have anything to do with what the warning stated. But if it helps deter vandals, that's a good thing.--Conservateur 02:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course, presenting false information - especially in the form of legal threats - serves only to bring ridicule upon one's self if discovered. Kinda like saying "responses to this post will result in immediate amputation of Susan B. Anthony's left big toe".PKBear 00:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Also if it's not a breach of bar ethics already to threaten criminal legal action in bad faith, maybe it should be. I know it is actionable to threaten civil action in bad faith.-AmesG 00:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Quoting 18 USC § 1470 and 18 USC § 1030 did come accross as empty threats which only invited ridicule. Perhaps it would be better to just say that obscenity and vandalism are sinful, adding:
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
God will definitely get them in the end.
JC 09:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationism confusion

I think quite a bit of tension is being created because one of the biases of the project is not being explicitly stated. Many overseas editors (such as me) are being attracted to the site because we want to see a strong alternative to wikipedia HOWEVER creationism is a dead issue for us it's a very tiny minority who accept it within europe. I have no problem with this being a creationist site but that bias needs to be explained somewhere - otherwise we are going to have a) a lot of tension and b) a lost of confused editors from the rest of the world. Where we are from being conservative does not equal beliving in creationism. --Cgday 19:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, sorry. Conservapedia is a pro-American wiki, so naturally foreigners are going to have to get used to American-style conservative views. If you are not comfortable with the Creationism material, feel free to ignore it.--Conservateur 17:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
you've missed my point - I have no problem with it being a creationist wiki but that bias should be made explicit in one of the policies or maybe in the commandments? that way we can avoid a lot of tension and aggravension from confused overseas editors? Surely it's sensible to have such a page so that every science and history talkpage does not dissolve into people saying "hey what's this creationist crap doing here!". --Cgday 20:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I haven't missed your point. As I stated, this is a pro-American wiki, so we're not going to go to great lengths to accomodate people from other countries who may not understand our culture and heritage. Articles here are presented from the American conservative point of view, simple as that. And I your "creationist crap" comment is out of line, considering there are hundreds of millions of Americans who happen to believe deeply in Creation. If you're just here to stir up trouble, please move on.--Conservateur 00:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
there are NOT "hundreds of millions of Americans" who believe deeply in Creation if by this you associate Creationism with Creation.

Thanks for once again entirely missing my point which has nothing at all to do with if creationism is true or not. Part of the reason that any organisation, project or wiki is successful is that it is able to clearly articulate it's goals. This project does not currently do this, instead random administrators are trying to manage the talkpages using their own judgement about what the goals and acceptable norms of the project are. A clear outline of the POV that scientific and historical topics should be approached would aid the administrators in the process of management and reduce the need to explain over and over again the same issues and have the same arguments over and over again. Without such a statement, as numbers increase, so will the management load placed upon administration. --Cgday 07:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, I commend your patriotism. Your efforts to insure that the bases of our American roots are conserved are admirable. I believe that Cgday brings up a point that would not harm our Conservative cause, but rather to improve the understanding of it. If it is found that others are not clear as to the point of this page, it would be in the cause’s best interest to assist in those areas and to bring about the understanding of our mission. Thank you Cgday for raising this point. – Constitution 09:20 22, March 2007

I am a little confused about the purpose of conservapedia now. Conservateur seems to be saying that it is a biased information source which serves to highlight only creationist and specifically American creationist understandings of the world around them. Is this true? If it is then that would mean that it is not a project of the wikipedia type at all... The project of wikipedia is to allow relatively free editing to arrive at balanced knowledge through the interaction of several perspectives. What you are saying is that conservapedia only serves a tiny minority of a certain population of a small part of the world... I don't quite understand the point of this?

Am I, as a christian conservative, to be excluded by the bias of conservapedia before I can contribute or read?


Once again, I request more activity on #conservapedia on freenode. We need ops to deal with things like the channel takeover we had (I'll send you a transcript if you really really want it), and incivility. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 20:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Problems Uploading Images

Am I the only one experiencing difficulty in uploading images? It seems like it's hit and miss as far as getting an image to upload successfully onto the website. Perhaps that's why there are so few images on the site so far. Someone I know said he had to try 12 times before his image would finally upload (he even tried different image file formats). I'm thinking there may be a problem with the site's image upload function.--Rexislexis 20:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I've seen this issue being mentioned here and there, so it appears that you're not the only one. I'm not sure what the current status or the cause of the issue is, though. --Sid 3050 20:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong data r.e - Einstein

It is true, depsite what is listed on this website, that Einsteins work(specifically e=mc2) led directly to the development of the nuclear bomb. In fact, a nuclear bomb is e=mc2 in action.


Featured Article (Alger Hiss)

I don't know what Aschlafly's criteria for a featured article are, but shouldn't a featured article at least stick to a few basic site rules like "Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain."? I never heard of Alger Hiss before, and the article has ZERO sources, so I am expected to blindly believe the assertion that this is "the truth about Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers" (mainpage quote). Not even to mention that there are a few non-encyclopedic comments and phrases in there ("...contradicting each other. One had to be lying." or "But Hiss could afford the best attorney and had the most impressive array of character witnesses ever assembled." to give two quick examples).

In my humble opinion, a featured article should be well sourced, encyclopedic and possibly be put up for discussion BEFORE it hits the main page.

Maybe then, sections like "The defense relied heavily on testimony by a expert witness who was a psychiatrist, who painted Chambers as a pathological liar. But the prosecutor destroyed the witness in one of the most famous cross-examinations in American legal history." wouldn't leave me with questions like "Doesn't the psychiatrist have a name?" or "If it's so famous, why can't we hear a little bit more about it?". --Sid 3050 11:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The best place to start would be the local library. If Hiss isn't found in a stand-alone book, then books about Richard Nixon (especially his life before 1960), the Cold War, politics during the 1950s, etc may suffice. Karajou 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
My point wasn't about my heightened interest in Hiss. The point is that the article (and all other articles here) should be sourced. It's one of the very few official commandments, and the article got "featured" status without citing ANY sources. That kinda clashes to say the least. When NONE of the information has a hint about its origin, then why have an article in the first place? How am I supposed to trust an article like that, especially when such a politics-related article is on a site with an obvious political bias? The sourcing commandment is in place for a reason.
If I wanted to have a starting point for Hiss, I'd go to Wikipedia. Let's see... 40 inline references, several of them online, 9 "further reading" book recommendations, 12 additional "external links", most of them online. That looks like a much more researched article to me. I of course don't know if everything in there is 100% correct, but if I felt doubt, I could verify the information from the article with the cited sources of the individual claims. No need to go hunting randomly for information through a dozen books.
Wikipedia exists so I don't have to go out to a library and start my research there. I can start at Wikipedia and just go to the library if I need to check one or two of the sources in question. And since Conservapedia presents itself as an alternative to Wikipedia, I think it's supposed to fulfill a similar role. --Sid 3050 13:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
My mistake for miss-reading your posting. Of course articles here can and must be sourced as mach as possible. I'd remove the article in question from the featured catagory and inform the original author that he's got to find the relevant material. Karajou 14:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This must be a joke

I too saw the article in today's Metro. I just cannot believe that anyone is going to take this site seriously. If dinosaurs went into the ark,which species were they, because after all the bible says the animals went in 2 by 2 ( not 4 by 4 ) so if they were T rex or velicoraptors then they would have eaten all the others. Also the world may well have been created in seven days but how long where the days ??? Dont recall anywhere it saying that a days is 24 hours long. All I can say is I despair for the future of the world if there are allegedly intelligent people who actually believe this rubbish. If Darwin is a myth, then where do fossils come from ? and its really interesting to try and work out the logic that atheism leads to rises in crime, under age sex etc etc. This site should have been launched on 1st April

I appreciate your thinking out of the box but 24 hrs. is pretty much the standard definition of day. What makes you think that the bible is not literal truth? --BenjaminS 15:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Science would seem to refute the Bible being literally true. Also the credibility of "everything just magically appearing" in 6 days would seem slightly obscene by many in this day and age.

Fossils Come from Dead animals. (where else) --TimSvendsen 14:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Seriously? "The standard definition of day." Wow... wow. It was the UNIVERSE which was created in 7 days, or so the fable goes. The earth has 24 hour days, but let's take a look around. I know many are adverse to science and fact but let's go there anyway. A day on Venus is 5,832 hours long. Saturn days are 10 hours and 47 minutes. Day can also mean a particular time notable for its distinctive characteristics: day, age, epoch, era, period, time. If you are going to spit on all science, then maybe you should spit on time.. the telling of time based on the earth's rotation is science. Sorry. We are going to have to take that back. You can use fuzzy unicorn antlers to tell time from now on.

What is wrong with assuming that the creation of the universe was described from the point of view of a hypothetical viewer on Earth; described in earth-based time? After all, you've done the same thing yourself, describing the days of Venus and Saturn in Earth-based terms (hours and minutes). Creationists do not "spit on" science. That's just a case of you denigrating people you don't agree with. Philip J. Rayment 22:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Bible comment?

How can this be a "site you can trust" when on the front page there is a bible quote? For a start, who is to say that Christianity is the correct religion and not one of the other major 6, and on top of this, for us atheists out there who have decided to chose science over religion, what about us?

You can't trust something which is obviously bias. As this website is.

Especially when it says America is "widely" accepted as a great nation.

You can trust us but if your atheism is offended by our references to the word of God then you are free not to use this site. --BenjaminS 15:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

PS America is widely accepted as a great nation.

By whom outside the USA? The Iraqis hate you, most of the world (except internally) is able to see what a dunce you have for a President, and you've ised the English language.

If you can be trusted, why do you show an obvious bias towards one religion on your homepage?

And where do you stand by comparison, Booker? Karajou 21:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If you mean what do I think of the UK, I'm not mad fond of it either. However, as I have never said it is a "great nation", this makes your question fairly void. Brooker

Yeah I can say that the majority of people I know in Canada far from see America as a great nation. Perhaps a 'once great nation', but certainly not now after starting a war with no purpose and being lead by a person with the IQ of a vegetable. Not to mention the fact that America is, in fact, bankrupt.

But yes the bible verse of the day is just stupid. Why beat around the bush? Why not just change the URL of the website to Or at least admit the total bias on the front page so people stop laughing so much.

Who's up for an Athiest quote of the day? --ALFa 22:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

America is not widely accepted as a great nation, and in the past some of the terrible things done have turned the world, and even America's own population against it. Atom bombs have been dropped on Japanese cities (Nagasaki and Hiroshima) killing many civilians. The Vietnam war ias another case where America tried to "liberate" the south Vietnamese from their "evil" communist oppressors, before bombing it constantly, using defoliants and conducting search and destroy missions that often ended up as just destroy missions. America has committed atrocities in the past (as have other countries) but from a country that counts itself on justice and freedom, going into a village (such as My Lai) and destorying any life found there, from men to women to babies. This seems a bit hypocritical. Also while you say you have more freedoms than any other country, but there are still many narrow minded "freedom" thinkers who are supremist, xenophobic and will not accept any religion but Christianity. Although there are of course some great people in America, some, such as this site seem to be the narrow-minded people we so want to avoid in Life. And yet again the "great America" is going into countries such as Afghanistan and repeating History.

"Homosexual Agenda"

I have a very simple question, to which I would appreciate a succinct, straightforward response... What valid argument exists to refuse homosexuals the rights and benefits of marriage? I've heard all of the religious reasons, but honestly, what else is there? It wouldn't cause hardship to anyone else, aside from perhaps an emotional standpoint (which Conservatives, I might point out, are eager to denounce others for). Gay marriage means financial stability in terms of health care coverage, life insurance benefits for spouses. What reason is there for such opposition to gay man and women having the same rights as you and I? Are we saying that an unloving heterosexual relationship is better than a loving homosexual one? Doesn't "ALL CREATED EQUAL" have a meaning anymore? Or have we not left the days of slavery and lack of women's suffrage?

For the sake of order in responses, I'd ask anyone not opposing gay marriage to respond with a simple "!", to allow for easier reading of (whatever responses might come about). Thank you :) PKBear 01:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe it has something to do with the fact that if gays adopt, then the adopted children will grow up to be gay by association, making the number of gays increase. I honestly don't know. GofG ||| Talk 07:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
More to the point, there are many children already being raised by gay couples. The question of whether or not this should be allowed is not on the table. The question on the table is whether or not those children deserve the legal protection of having married parents. Tsumetai 07:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
"Gay by association" is absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. If sexuality were developed simply by association, there would be NO GAY PEOPLE! Procreation dictates a heterosexual couple, hence hetero association. Obviously, there is something beyond environment affecting sexuality. "Making the number of gays increase" is, also, ridiculous - not to mention trivial and bigoted. Homosexuals are not a scourge on this country - in fact, given the amount of attention paid to the most minor infractions by them, they have all the more reason to stay on the "straight and narrow" (pardon the pun).
Regarding children deserving legal protection of married parents - that is all the more reason to treat homosexuals - and their marriage, adoption, benefits, etc. - just like everyone else! Homosexual couples adopting children go through much more rigorous adoption procedures than hetero couples, and studies have shown that this results in MORE loving, involved, caring parenting. As I've said before, the private lives of homosexuals do not affect anyone else unduly - unless that person is intruding upon their relationship, which is wrong in itself! Stop being scared of other's personal life choices and give these people the respect due to all citizens of this country! They aren't telling you to stop being straight, who are you to tell them to stop being gay?!?
God alone is responsible for final judgment, NOT US! My guess is that good people will get their rewards regardless of who shared their bed, and those busy judging others should probably pack asbestos socks!PKBear 13:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with you that it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I was just stating, as it had been 7 hours and no one had answered you, what I believe that they believe the problem is. I personally am pro-gay marriage. GofG ||| Talk 16:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


I don't now where else to ask, but Tsumetai has put some messages on my page and i don't understant. He wont explain. What vandalism did i do? what am I not being a good parody at? I thought this wasn't like Wikipedia :-( Gabriel 13:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It isn't. It's much worse, more biased, and run by the God Squad. Get out while you can. - Brooker 22:21, 22 March 2007 (GMT)

Then leave, Mr. Brooker. Karajou 20:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

New Icon

I am offended by the new icon. As an American and someone who has been raised to respect the flag, I cannot believe that on a conservative website such a disrespect of the flag would occur. The new icon makes it appear that the flag is being hung upside down, or even if hung the correct way, it is at the bottom of the icon, which disrespectful to the flag. I really wish the old icon would be put back, if only temporarily, since it isn't disrespectful to the flag and makes no claim about nationality, which is important given the broad range of users of this wiki. ColinRtalk 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Stars should be on the other side...then it would be right. Karajou 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Honestly, my reaction was the same as ColinR's and Karajou's. But our expert says we are all wrong: the stars are supposed to be on the left. Note especially the rule 14 for hanging a flag in a window, like the icon.--Aschlafly 21:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
How odd and interesting! But what good is it to be technically correct when most casual visitors will not get it? (Yes, I'm aware of the discussion about the new logo, but I still felt like saying this :P) --Sid 3050 21:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You've got a point. But do we cave into misperception (which I shared)?--Aschlafly 21:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a lose/lose situation. You either amuse/confuse casual people, or you tick off the more knowledgeable guys. In such a situation, the only way to win is not to play, I think. I'd stick with the scroll we initially had. Just take out the hidden messages and put it back in. It was by far the most professional and balanced logo (in my opinion). No in-you-face bias, no attempt to summarize "conservative" in one or two images, and it looked smooth. Not to mention the balance between a modern style and what I guess might be seen to stand for old values. --Sid 3050 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
As a Non-American, I feel it slightly unconservative that a bias towards one country is shown on the flag. While this may not automatically show this, the bias in articles towards America affirms this belief. - Brooker 23:26, 23 March 2007 (GMT)
Maybe you're right. Another logo has been proposed at the bottom of my talk page User_talk:Aschlafly.--Aschlafly 20:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I have nothing against using Stars & Stripes except that it excludes conservatives from other nations. What about Canadian conservatives? We really need a new logo.--Rexislexis 11:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not that the stars are on the wrong side, it's just that with it at the bottom of the icon, it appears the flag is hung upside down. I firmly support using another icon! No offense to the creator of the current one, though. ColinRtalk 21:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think is better to find a brand new icon for the page, a very especial logo, the flag is the symbol of a nation, I'm from Venezuela and I like this page, Why not my country's flag? (I'm kidding) Come on people I think there is more creativity somewhere. What about a book logo or something like that, this is an encyclopedia not a political party. Thanks

I am an American and I agree with all the non-Americans that an American flag restricts our audience. Didn't the apostle Paul say he became all things to all men so that he might win the many. Didn't the Christian missionary Hudson Taylor wear Chinese clothes (which was rare for the time) so he might win more Chinese? I dare anyone say that Hudson Taylor and the apostle Paul were not successful. Why are we purposefully sabotaging reaching more people around the globe? Why? Conservative 03:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Pic archive needed

We need a pic archive up and running here, where our pics are catagorized properly and licenced for use throughout Conservapedia. Karajou 11:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It appears the only image that's currently working is the logo. Is the image server down? Does anybody know when it's going to be back up and running?--Rexislexis 11:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Mistake in wording

The first line under "Items of Interest" currently reads:

Did you know that Darwin believed are were superior to women?"

Darwin believe what were superior to women? Yeah, I know the answer, but how did a silly mistake like this get on to the front page without someone picking it up?

Philip J. Rayment 18:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

TAKE DOWN "Did you know that Darwin believed..." misleading. IF Darwin believed men were superior to women, it's becuase that was a prevalent view at the time. Paul believed the same thing (except in Galatians) but I doubt that that's something you'd put on the main page.

Take down the intellectually dishonest frontpage statement.-AmesG

Why is it intellectually dishonest to state what Darwin believed? I am prepared to make the requested edit, but I don't quite understand whay it's dishonest; do you think that the statement is misleading in some way --BenjaminS 21:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's misleading insofar as its calculated goal is to shock - "wow, I didn't know that Darwin thought that" - without presenting the context. Also, the article linked for that inflammatory statement doesn't even support the proposition. It's blatant editorializing, masquerading as fact, just like a good deal else here.-AmesG 21:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not intellectually dishonest, but it's completely irrelevant to anything regarding Darwin. It's a complete smear, and I think that our standards as good Christian folk should be a bit higher. Heck, Bill Clinton believed alot of things (like, that he could get away with adultery), but that doesn't mean he created the biggest surplus in US history (yes, inflation considered). --Hojimachongtalk 21:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it says "Did you know that Darwin believed are were superior to women?" Not "men are superior to women," not "men were superior to women," "are were superior to women." Dpbsmith 21:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Yea, I saw that, I thought about alerting someone to that effect but then I realized it was a perfect metaphor for the complete unprofessionalism of this whole site.
This is outrageous. First of all, it's uncyclopaedic to use the word "You" in an encyclopaedia article.
Second of all, we should also put that George Bush is a homophobe. Yeah, it's a word that has a negative meaning, but it's true, isn't it? GofG ||| Talk 23:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

WOW ! did you know most christians believe men are superior to women. whilst some of the smaller sects do allow women to be priests, the anglicans only did recently (they still don't think they are good enough to be bishops) and the roman catholics seem unlikely to ever let women be priests. - TeganGrady 26/03/07 12:50 BST

No, as a Christian I didn't know that (despite hearing it claimed by sceptics numerous times). Could you provide evidence please? Believing that men and women have different roles is not the same as believing that one is superior to the other, by the way. Philip J. Rayment 09:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"

Premature. Wishful thinking.

Calling itself "trustworthy" when it isn't yet trustworthy shows its present lack of trustworthiness.

Vanity, thy name is Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 11:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

"The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" - Ha, almost as good as Fox News' "Fair and Balanced"--Sm355 15:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I must agree with Dpbsmith, as of now, it's not trustworthy in most articles/categories. --Hojimachongtalk 15:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we need to enforce sourcing more for this to be true. Conservative 03:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Yes and no. Lack of sources is a problem in many articles, but to become trustworthy, I agree there of course. But the problem goes far deeper than that. Some articles do not stand up to Andy's guidelines regarding gossip and encyclopedic style. Many articles misrepresent sources, quotes, and facts. And quite a few articles simply are unbalanced. Not even to mention the various other problems that come from only having been in business for a few months. --Sid 3050 09:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Eureka, I have found it! Links to the MAJOR conservative sites.....

I was thinking of a way we could attract a lot of conservatives and others by putting something very useful on the site that they could use everyday.

Here is my idea:

The DrudgeReport provides many links to international news sources and columnists. However, the DrudgeReport has been criticized for providing many links to non-conservative sources even though the Mr. Drudge is a conservative radio host. I suggest providing a link on our front page that goes to a page with MAJOR conservative web sources such as Fox News, Cal Thomas, Peggy Noonan, Bill O'Reilly, Phyllis Schlafly (of course!), etc. etc. We could also have links to the MAJOR conservative blogs. I also think it would be nice to have links to the MAJOR conservative Christianity websites like Christianity Today. I might be wrong but I think this would be fairly unique (if not totally unique although I do not want to be presumptious). I saw one website that attempted to do this and it wasn't very well done as it had links to non-conservative websites. The site is called: The Right Links - Conservative Websites and it was created by the CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS. I also think "The Right Links" failed to bring in much web traffic (according to Alexa) because it had too many non-major websites that nobody would care about. I think this would be useful so people could could have a handy source to look at what is going on in the conservative world from MAJOR conservative sources and have it be very convenient. Conservative 04:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservapedia's Holy Road to Wikipedia

I am one who believes that the growth of Conservapedia will have a wonderful and mystical effect, on both the readers, but more especially the writers of its "evolving" content.

I do not think that any commentary written on Conservapedia so far, in all that analysis - supportive or derogatory - has dealt with what might yet ensue from this holy quest. And it is something I see occurring in the articles as they are being emended at this very time. Emended, I might add, not by saboteurs and vandals, but by the knights of Conservapedia themselves.

Can you think of what this wonderful process might be? Well, here is a clue. Read the Einstein article as it first appeared. Embarrassing drivel, isn't it? Read it now. A lot more coherent, accurate, presentable. So in this way, by writing on subjects, whether theologically conservative or not, and then putting the content of those articles up for analysis, commentary and even dispute, and emending the following, and then adding new and fresh material, and so forth in a dialectical fashion, well, now do you see what you have done, and what will inevitably ensue?

Contrary to the opinions of some, there are many strains of conservatism, and it might surprise Young Earth Creationists that not only are they not alone in this field, but that they are not even in the forefront. Their truths are handed down on sacred parchments, and admit of no revision. They ask for complete and utter - essentially unquestioning - faith. And this process, one in which a novice is indoctrinated with the “full gospel”, complete with everything they need to know, and with strong proscriptions against going further or emending what has gone before, is, as anyone can see, the VERY antithesis of what is being built by the wiki process.

Don't you see, brothers and sisters? It is not Wikipedia, as such, which promotes liberalism and agnosticism of every kind. It is the wiki process itself! As Marshall McLuhan said, The Medium is the Message. It is not the CONTENT of Wikipedia that is iconoclastic and rebellious, it is the VERY NATURE of the compilation of that content – and that process, the wiki structure and protocol - this is the very thing that we ourselves have adopted so enthusiastically here. And what is that wiki process but the concept of a debating forum, a learning exchange, a conversation, a dialogue, a democracy - essentially the very things that are the foundations of the United States Constitution.

Now, the wiki concept is a development of all that, much more sophisticated and advanced than any of its predecessors could have imagined. Ivan Illych, in the 1970s, could hardly have foreseen how far the concepts of learning exchanges could have come. He was thought an impractical dreamer when he was talking about communal noticeboards and town hall meetings! Now it is upon us with everything that microchips and the speed of light can give us, and far more. And it is a process that has an unstoppable momentum.

So, if Wikipedia is a natural technological progression of what are fundamental American values of plurality, liberalism, democracy, freethinking etc what then does that say about the future of Conservapedia, a project founded on the errant notion that Wikipedia’s deviations are the result of its content rather than the natural outcome of its structure? Well, it means, in brief, that in attempting to outdo Wikipedia, you WILL BECOME WIKIPEDIA!!

It is happening already. It does not require spies and interlopers. It is a perfectly logical progression. As you debate ideas, you will find it necessary to include those ideas, even if only for to rebut them. But in their inclusion will come also the bane of all that is orthodox, the serpent of comparison, of deviation. Once a heresy has been listed, and properly defined, and accurately described, why, who can say that some child may not read it and be swayed by its argument, even if covered in odium by the presenting writer? And looking at lists of different types of creationists, Young Earths, Old Earthers, Geostationers, Flatearthers, and many others, and reading of the hundreds of creation myths of various indigenous cultures, may not a perceptive child ask himself, “Well, what a lot of dispute there is out there over such issues, I did not know there was so much going on! I suppose that what Sunday School told me is the RIGHT and the ONLY Truth, like Miss Crabapple says, of course, but then, I suppose all those OTHER folk, well they went to their own Sunday School or whatever they have in its place, and they get told DIFFERENT stuff, which they sincerely believe, and I figure THEY must thing WE are the ones who have got it all skew-whiff and backwards…” and so forth. And what is that but the precursor of deism and even agnosticism, and the apology for heterodoxy and ecumenism, and plurality of every kind?

Now, how can that be avoided? Well, the nature of encyclopaedias is to be “complete”. And by its nature that makes them rather a different kettle of fish to a book of dogmatics, a catechism, a holy text “handed down”. And when you combine the innate tendency of encyclopaedias to feed the syncretic tendency over the particular one, with the naturally anarchic and polymorphic nature of the internet itself, I simply cannot see how Conservapedia can be constrained by the avowal of its simple and pure intentions. No, keeping Conservapedia pure will be like trying to herd cats - everyone has tried it, but in the history of Man, not one person has yet succeeded.

But here is the nub of my thesis. There is nothing to fear in this progression. It has been a God-given chance to advance in knowledge and philosophy. Look at the first draft of the Einstein article again. It ridicules the theory of relativity, without even understanding it. Basically, it calls Einstein a fraud and a charlatan; it all but calls him a duplicitous Jew. And look at it now. A lot more like Wikipedia, isn’t it? Perhaps even better, in some respects. Now look at the absolute nonsense on the China entry. Is this an example of the “educational, clean and concise entries” Conservapedia purports to support. Watch thoughtful, interested and knowledgeable writers transform this shameful drek into a decent article on this ancient and fascinating place. And then, we well have occasion to note, isn’t this a lot like what we had in that dreadful biased Satanic Bible “Wikipedia”? And so it will go, article by article, theme by theme, as the currents of thought, dialectical and polymorphous, turn the dogmatic into something that is more tentative and discursive, but at the same time, much richer and more interesting.

So that is the Holy Quest that God has bequeathed you. That you shall remove the braces from your brain, by the practice of writing and thinking of all that is on God’s Earth, and that, through this, you will become educated people, and not remain hicks visiting the city. That in the process of expanding your intellect, you shall become your enemy. You shall become better liberals than the liberals themselves. For you shall be holy liberals.

There is a story of a prince whose betrothed died before they could be married. After a long year of mourning, he vowed that he would build her the finest mausoleum in the world. And the grand project began. And so it grew - the columns multiplied, the ornate statues of jade, the friezes of alabaster, the hanging gardens, the avenues of fine marble, the bowers of birds. Every year, new plazas and wings were added, new windows of crystal, new treasures from every corner of the world. Then one day, as the prince - now an old man - surveyed the peerless creation he had spent 50 years in creating, he was a little disturbed. Everything was NEARLY perfect, but there was just one tiny detail which marred the whole effect. Then he saw it. “Have that removed!”, he ordered. And the workmen came and took the sarcophagus of the princess away.

And so it will, I believe, be with Conservapedia. In writing it you will find your liberation from the narrow view of what it is to be conservative, you will free you mental feet from their bindings. You will write a book to break the neck of your enemy, and when you finish the last page, you will turn to the front leaf, and dedicate it to him. Myles Paulsen March 26, 2007 (my name here mylesP)

"Young Earth Creationists['] ... truths are handed down on sacred parchments, and admit of no revision.". Nonsense. Creationists have revised a number of their ideas.
"They ask for complete and utter - essentially unquestioning - faith". More nonsense. If this were so they would not allow questions at their meetings and in their publications.
Philip J. Rayment 07:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I love how this person spent the time to write out such a detailed analysis of Conservapedia and you find two facts that are supposedly incorrect and only point them out. GofG ||| Talk 07:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
So? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't comment at all unless I comment on every point? Philip J. Rayment 09:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I was just pointing it out. I personally think that it's well written and accurate. GofG ||| Talk 21:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia "Leader"

I am outraged by the front page.

The misinformation spread by Wikipedia just keeps growing. Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has given up and started his own system. Read here how the current Wikipedia leader denies that Sanger co-founded it!

Every Wikipedian on Wikipedia who took any part in that incident has disagreed with Jimmy and he has been thoroughly told off for what he did. IF we are going to attack Wikipedia on our front page, we had better get our facts straight. What we are doing is withholding some of the information in order to make Wikipedia look bad. In reality, this incident showed how little people take everything for granted, even the word of our exalted "leader". In reality, of course, he admits to being a terrible editor, and knows very little of all of the technical aspects that have sprung up around him.

Why in the world are we attacking Wikipedia on the front page anyway? If we are going to do that, why not also point out our own faults? Like the imminent bias in nearly every single article and how we ban Sysops for doing nothing but encouraging people to follow consensus? This website is not an attack page on Wikipedia, and as such we should not be attacking Wikipedia on the front page. GofG ||| Talk 16:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

For those interested; Larry Sanger's wiki can be found at Sulgran 04:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

oh please!

Think our schools are doing a good job today? Read this racist contribution to Conservapedia from an internet address at Brown University, an elite, liberal college. This is front page material for an encyclopedia? Really? An encyclopedia? --Cgday 17:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well...this "encyclopedia" anyway. Nematocyte 06:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course it is. Haven't you checked the title page of a World Book lately? IMFromKathlene 04:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Firearms pages

For being a conservative encyclopedia, there sure aren't a lot of boomstick articles on here. Think I'll go make some.

It's funny, because Wikipedia, for being so liberal, has some of the most informative and detailed gun articles I've seen online. Their SKS page is like, a mile long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bagpipe (talk)

cause Wikipedia has been around for 6 years?Jaques 03:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh pish. This is an encyclopedia by conservatives for conservatives. There's gotta be at least one WASR-10 toting good ol' boy around here besides me who believes in the Second Ammendment and our right to oust our own government by force if they get too uppity about taking away our liberties. Vote from the rooftops, I say.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm not really much of a conservative. I'm more of a gun-friendly Democrat (ironically, gun-friendly Democrats pulled in the most votes in the 2006 Primaries). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bagpipe (talk)