Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-07-14T01:20:14Z

Bob Arctor: /* Blogs 4 Brownback */

== HarryPalms ==

I suspect that [[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=HarryPalms contribs]] is a vandal. The name is an obvious reference to "hairy palms". Disgusting. Here's what he inserted into this article:

::He cites former Senator Jesse Helms as a model.[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator]

I vote to remove this as it is a link to an unreliable and obviously biased source. Actually I'm not even going to wait for a vote. This assertion isn't even cited in the article. Wikipedia also makes such an unsupported assertion. This is an obvious (though subtle) attempt to smear a wonderful principled conservative. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::All sources are biased, just some more so than others. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blogs 4 Brownback ==
[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback] was removed from the list of blogs because it's supposedly a "parody." What is the proof of this? It looks legit to me. I don't think arbitrarily removing it was the right thing to do. I'm adding it back and would appreciate a discussion before such actions are taken. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 01:15, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/

You can't convince me that's not a parody. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:54, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Why was this page locked right after you deleted the link? What happened to the discussion? Or are you the sole arbiter of truth here? Personally, I think the only one who can dictate truth is my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I think you are being unfair. I will back off, but I don't understand why there was no discussion of this. If there was, I respectfully request you point me to it. Thank you. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 01:26, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

: Oh please. The statement that "heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine" is obviously a parody, and not a particularly good parody either. Rest assured that DanH is not the only one who observed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure this guy himself is a parodist [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:43, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Me too. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:44, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Fine. I won't bring it up again. Maybe that post was a joke. I don't know. I'll leave well enough alone. Sorry to bring this up. There's more important things to be done. I didn't realize there was a consensus on this matter. Now I know better. Thanks for clarifying this. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 01:59, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:Its alright. No need to apologize [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:00, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:: I actually never read that entry when it was first posted. It does seem pretty goofy. But when I've read that blog in the past it did seem pretty genuine. Even more recently. Why would someone go to so much effort to make a parody blog? It doesn't make a lot of sence. I guess the saying goes ''caveat emptor''. If I was taken in, that's the way it goes. I hope this isn't a black mark against me. I feel kinda dumb if it's a fake. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 21:20, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

User:Bob Arctor

2007-07-13T06:00:37Z

Bob Arctor: update links

== Bob Arctor's Conservapedia Page ==

I hope to help, in some small part, to make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia of knowledge. I will do my very best. If I make a mistake please don't hesitate to let me know in my [[User_talk:Bob_Arctor|Talk page]].

I support Sam Brownback for President. I think you should too.

== Important Websites ==

*[http://www.brownback.com/ Sam Brownback for President]
*[http://www.brownbacker.com/ The Daily Brownbacker] (Official Blog!)
*[http://studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]
*[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback] (very possibly a parody website)

== A Simple Message ==

Smile, God loves you!

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-07-13T05:59:03Z

Bob Arctor: Apology

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-07-13T05:26:58Z

Bob Arctor: /* Blogs 4 Brownback */

Sam Brownback

2007-07-10T05:20:22Z

Bob Arctor: Added Blogs 4 Brownback with note that it might be a parody. Semi-revert.

[[Image:1111.jpg|right|thumb|Sam Brownback]]
'''Sam Dale Brownback''' (born September 12, 1956 in Garnett, KS) is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[Kansas]].<ref>Biographical Directory of the United States Congeress [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000953]</ref> He is currently a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]].

==Early Life and Education==
Brownback grew up on his family farm near Parker, KS. He attended Prairie View High School in Linn County and served as state president of [[Future Farmers of America]]. His tradition of leadership continued through his college years as student body president at [[Kansas State University]] and as class president at [[University of Kansas]] Law School.<ref>Official Senate Bigography [http://brownback.senate.gov/english/aboutsam/biography.htm] </ref>

==Political Career==
Brownback served as a [[White House]] Fellow during [[George H.W. Bush]]'s administration and later became Secretary of Agriculture for Kansas, the youngest in the state's history. In 1994, Brownback was elected to the [[United States House of Representatives]] from Kansas' 2nd District as part of [[Newt Gingrich]]'s Republican Revolution. In 1996, Brownback was elected to the [[United States Senate]]. He sits on the Appropriations and Judiciary committees and is the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee. Brownback was involved in funding allegations concerning his first campaign for the Senate. <ref>http://www.rainbowtel.net/~bryants/abbmodep_all_scans.htm</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
In January 2008, Brownback declared his candidacy for President of the United States and is touting himself as the most socially conservative candidate available. He has also referred to himself as a "bleeding heart conservative."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/us/politics/12brownback.html</ref>

==Political Views==
Brownback is most well known for his pro-life views and his work on human rights issues.

He has come under fire for supporting the Kennedy-McCain proposal on [[illegal immigration]].

Raised as a [[Methodist]], Brownback later joined a nondenominational evangelical church, and in 2002 he became [[Catholic]].

In December 2005, Brownback advocated using Washington, DC as a "laboratory" for a flat tax.

The Reverend Rob Schenk of the National Clergy Council has called Brownback the "gold standard" for a viable conservative presidential candidate. [http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=8058]

==See also==

'''Official'''

*[http://brownback.senate.gov Senate Website]
*[http://www.brownback.com/ Brownback for President]

'''Blogs'''

*[http://www.brownbacker.com/ The Daily Brownbacker] (Official Campaign Blog)
*[http://www.sambrownback.goingon.com/ Sam Brownback '08]
*[http://www.studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]
*[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback] (Parody site?)
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Brownback, Sam}}
[[Category:US Senators|US Senators]]
[[Category:2008 presidential candidates]]

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-07-10T05:17:18Z

Bob Arctor:

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-07-10T05:15:56Z

Bob Arctor: Blogs 4 Brownback a parody?

Sam Brownback

2007-07-10T02:27:29Z

Bob Arctor: Added Official Campaign Blog; Re-sorted blogs by relevance

[[Image:1111.jpg|right|thumb|Sam Brownback]]
'''Sam Dale Brownback''' (born September 12, 1956 in Garnett, KS) is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[Kansas]].<ref>Biographical Directory of the United States Congeress [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000953]</ref> He is currently a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]].

==Early Life and Education==
Brownback grew up on his family farm near Parker, KS. He attended Prairie View High School in Linn County and served as state president of [[Future Farmers of America]]. His tradition of leadership continued through his college years as student body president at [[Kansas State University]] and as class president at [[University of Kansas]] Law School.<ref>Official Senate Bigography [http://brownback.senate.gov/english/aboutsam/biography.htm] </ref>

==Political Career==
Brownback served as a [[White House]] Fellow during [[George H.W. Bush]]'s administration and later became Secretary of Agriculture for Kansas, the youngest in the state's history. In 1994, Brownback was elected to the [[United States House of Representatives]] from Kansas' 2nd District as part of [[Newt Gingrich]]'s Republican Revolution. In 1996, Brownback was elected to the [[United States Senate]]. He sits on the Appropriations and Judiciary committees and is the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee. Brownback was involved in funding allegations concerning his first campaign for the Senate. <ref>http://www.rainbowtel.net/~bryants/abbmodep_all_scans.htm</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
In January 2008, Brownback declared his candidacy for President of the United States and is touting himself as the most socially conservative candidate available. He has also referred to himself as a "bleeding heart conservative."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/us/politics/12brownback.html</ref>

==Political Views==
Brownback is most well known for his pro-life views and his work on human rights issues.

He has come under fire for supporting the Kennedy-McCain proposal on [[illegal immigration]].

Raised as a [[Methodist]], Brownback later joined a nondenominational evangelical church, and in 2002 he became [[Catholic]].

In December 2005, Brownback advocated using Washington, DC as a "laboratory" for a flat tax.

The Reverend Rob Schenk of the National Clergy Council has called Brownback the "gold standard" for a viable conservative presidential candidate. [http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=8058]

==See also==

'''Official'''

*[http://brownback.senate.gov Senate Website]
*[http://www.brownback.com/ Brownback for President]

'''Blogs'''

*[http://www.brownbacker.com/ The Daily Brownbacker] (Official Campaign Blog)
*[http://www.sambrownback.goingon.com/ Sam Brownback '08]
*[http://www.studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]
*[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Brownback, Sam}}
[[Category:US Senators|US Senators]]
[[Category:2008 presidential candidates]]

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2007-03-19T02:47:23Z

Bob Arctor: Hillary...Attractive?

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Troll

2007-03-19T01:53:08Z

Bob Arctor: Help!

== Help! ==

I know this isn't the best initial entry that could have been made, but I think it's important to have such a page since we seem to have a lot of trolls here on Conservapedia.

Anyone that can improve this entry is welcome to do so! --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Troll

2007-03-19T01:50:31Z

Bob Arctor: Create Initial Page

== Folklore ==

A troll is a mythical creature, such as a giant or a dwarf.

== Online ==

A troll, in [[internet]] parlance, is an entity or character that purposely disrupts a conversation via [[usenet]] or [[email]] or a comment thread on a [[blog]].

An [[internet]] troll will lock their target, bait the line and spread the net to catch their goal (unwitting victim).

== External Links ==

*[[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=troll Troll]] -- Dictionary definition

User:Bob Arctor

2007-03-18T06:59:19Z

Bob Arctor: Added "Talk page" link

== Bob Arctor's Conservapedia Page ==

I hope to help, in some small part, to make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia of knowledge. I will do my very best. If I make a mistake please don't hesitate to let me know in my [[User_talk:Bob_Arctor|Talk page]].

I support Sam Brownback for President. I think you should too.

== Important Websites ==

*[http://www.brownback.com/ Sam Brownback for President]
*[http://studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]
*[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback]

== A Simple Message ==

Smile, God loves you!

User:Bob Arctor

2007-03-18T06:43:43Z

Bob Arctor:

== Bob Arctor's Conservapedia Page ==

I hope to help, in some small part, to make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia of knowledge. I will do my very best. If I make a mistake please don't hesitate to let me know in my Talk page.

I support Sam Brownback for President. I think you should too.

== Important Websites ==

*[http://www.brownback.com/ Sam Brownback for President]
*[http://studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]
*[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback]

== A Simple Message ==

Smile, God loves you!

Mitt Romney

2007-03-18T06:27:36Z

Bob Arctor: Added "Blogs" for reference and research, Category:Bios

'''Willard "Mitt" Romney''' (born March 12, 1947), served as the governor of [[Massachusetts]] from 2002 to 2006 and is a [[Republican]] candidate in the 2008 presidential election. If elected, he will become the first [[Mormon]] president.

== Personal ==
Currently, Romney is gaining popularity because his stable marriage attracts conservative audiences who are unhappy with [[John McCain]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], and [[Newt Gingrich]]'s many divorces. The irony that the Mormon has been married the least times of all the candidates was pointed out by Romney's wife, Ann, who said the difference between her husband and the other candidates is that "he's had only one wife."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_el_pr/romney_polygamy]</ref> While Romney himself has only one wife polygamy is very recent in his family history. His great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254362,00.html]</ref>

Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and presidential candidate George Romney, a "Rockefeller Republican," according to Lisa McGirr, in the book Suburban Warriors, Copyright 2001, Princeton University Press, p. 141, 222. Many Massachusetts Republicans do not connect the father's politics with the son's, much like Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.

== Political Views ==
Romney's critics attack his inconsistent track record on issues such as [[abortion]] and [[Homosexuality|gay marriage]] to the point where he has gotten the nickname "Multiple Choice Mitt." A man dressed as a dolphin calling himself Flipper has appeared at some recent conservative gatherings to bring attention to Romney's inconsistent stands on abortion and gay marriage. Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002. These swaps coupled with his [[Mormon]] affiliation puts him at odds with much of the Evangelical right, but a PollingReport.com chart from March 3, 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 7% within the GOP primary forecasts.
[[Category:Biographies]]

== Stem Cell Research ==
Mitt Romney supports the right of scientists to research on embryos created during fertility treatments.[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/2]

== Civil Unions ==
Romney is opposed to the idea of gay marriage, however he has voiced support for domestic partnership benefits and equal rights for homosexuals.[http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/3]

== Abortion ==
"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." (Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
<ref>[http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values America's Culture and Values] mittromney.com</ref> 
In his campaign literature for the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election Mitt Romney expressed a willingness to defend that States pro-choice status quo.[http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/4]

==References==
<References/>

==External links==
*[http://www.mittromney.com Mitt Romney for President 2008]
*[http://mormonwiki.org/Mitt_Romney_and_Mormonism Mitt Romney and Mormonism] - MormonWiki.org

==Blogs==
*[http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/ My Man Mitt]
*[http://conservativesagainstromney.com/ Conservatives Against Romney]

[[Category:Biographies]]

Sam Brownback

2007-03-18T06:09:01Z

Bob Arctor: Added "External Links" for reference and research

{{stub}}
'''Sam Brownback''' (born September 12, 1956) is a Republican Senator from Kansas who is [http://www.brownback.com/ running for president] and touting himself as the most socially conservative candidate available. Brownback is most well known for his pro-life views and his work on human rights issues.

Senator Brownback has come under fire for supporting the Kennedy-McCain proposal on [[illegal immigration]].

Raised as a Methodist, Brownback later joined a nondenominational evangelical church, and in 2002 he became Catholic.

In December 2005, Brownback advocated using Washington, DC as a "laboratory" for a flat tax.

Brownback was involved in funding allegations concerning his first campaign for the Senate.[http://www.rainbowtel.net/~bryants/abbmodep_all_scans.htm]

The Reverend Rob Schenk of the National Clergy Council has called Brownback the "gold standard" for a viable conservative presidential candidate. [http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=8058]

== External Links ==

'''Official'''

*[http://brownback.senate.gov Senate Website]
*[http://www.brownback.com/ Brownback for President]

'''Blogs'''

*[http://www.studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]
*[http://www.sambrownback.goingon.com/ Sam Brownback '08]
*[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback]

[[Category:Biographies]]

User:Bob Arctor

2007-03-18T05:26:02Z

Bob Arctor: Create User Page

== Bob Arctor's Conservapedia Page ==

I hope to help, in some small part, to make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia of knowledge. I will do my very best. If I make a mistake please don't hesitate to let me know in my Talk page.

I support Sam Brownback for President. I think you should too.

== Important Websites ==

[http://www.brownback.com/ Sam Brownback for President]

[http://studentsforbrownback.org/ Students for Brownback]

[http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/ Blogs 4 Brownback]

== A Simple Message ==

God loves you!

Talk:Vandalism

2007-03-18T04:12:44Z

Bob Arctor: vandalism vandalized!

It seems my new entry on vandalism was immediately vandalized. LOL. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 00:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism

2007-03-18T03:49:45Z

Bob Arctor: Created page to describe what liberals do here far too often.

== Vandalism ==

Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure, a symbol or anything else that goes against the will of the owner/governing body.

Vandalism on Conservapedia is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Conservapedia.

Vandalism is also something that liberals do who have no life of their own and somehow think it's funny to sabotage a great conservative wiki like Conservapedia.

== Examples ==

[[Jon Swift]]

== External Links ==

[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vandalism Dictionary definition]

Sam Brownback

2007-03-18T03:27:41Z

Bob Arctor: Removed vandalism; fixed typo.

{{stub}}
'''Sam Brownback''' (born 1956) is a Republican Senator from Kansas who is [http://www.brownback.com/ running for president] and touting himself as the most socially conservative candidate available. Brownback is most well known for his pro-life views and his work on human rights issues.

Senator Brownback has come under fire for supporting the Kennedy-McCain proposal on [[illegal immigration]].

Raised as a Methodist, Brownback later joined a nondenominational evangelical church, and in 2002 he became Catholic.

In December 2005, Brownback advocated using Washington, DC as a "laboratory" for a flat tax.

Brownback was involved in funding allegations concerning his first campaign for the Senate.[http://www.rainbowtel.net/~bryants/abbmodep_all_scans.htm]

The Reverend Rob Schenk of the National Clergy Council has called Brownback the "gold standard" for a viable conservative presidential candidate. [http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=8058]

[[Category:Biographies]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-17T20:50:09Z

Bob Arctor: Yes! My two cents.

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-17T20:49:26Z

Bob Arctor: Yes! My two cents.

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-17T20:48:29Z

Bob Arctor: Yes! My two cents.

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-17T20:47:38Z

Bob Arctor: Yes! My two cents.

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-03-17T20:30:44Z

Bob Arctor: Formatting

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-03-17T20:24:53Z

Bob Arctor: HarryPalms

I suspect that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=HarryPalms HarryPalms] is a vandal. The name is an obvious reference to "hairy palms". Disgusting. Here's what he inserted into this article:

He cites former Senator Jesse Helms as a model.[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator]

I vote to remove this as it is a link to an unreliable and obviously biased source. Actually I'm not even going to wait for a vote. This assertion isn't even cited in the article. Wikipedia also makes such an unsupported assertion. This is an obvious (though subtle) attempt to smear a wonderful principled conservative. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sam Brownback

2007-03-17T20:23:20Z

Bob Arctor: HarryPalms

I suspect that HarryPalms is a vandal. The name is an obvious reference to "hairy palms". Disgusting. Here's what he inserted into this article:

He cites former Senator Jesse Helms as a model.[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator]

I vote to remove this as it is a link to an unreliable and obviously biased source. Actually I'm not even going to wait for a vote. This assertion isn't even cited in the article. WikiPedia also makes such an unsupported assertion. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Sam Brownback

2007-03-17T20:10:50Z

Bob Arctor: link to official Brownback website

{{stub}}
'''Sam Brownback''' (born 1956) is a Republican Senator from Kansas who is [http://www.brownback.com/ running for president] and touting himself as the most socially conservative candidate available. He cites former Senator Jesse Helms as a model.[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator] Brownback is most well known for his pro-life views and his work on human rights issues.

Senator Brownback has come under fire for supporting the Kennedy-McCain proposal on [[illegal immigration]].

Raised as a Methodist, Brownback later joined a nondenominational evangelical church, and in 2002 he became Catholic.

In December 2005, Brownback advocated using Washington, DC as a "laboratory" for a flat tax.

Brownback was involved in funding allogations concerning his first campaign for the Senate.[http://www.rainbowtel.net/~bryants/abbmodep_all_scans.htm]

The Reverend Rob Schenk of the National Clergy Council has called Brownback the "gold standard" for a viable conservative presidential candidate. [http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=8058]

[[Category:Biographies]]