https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=CaznoobConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-10-26T02:57:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Caznoob&diff=226534User talk:Caznoob2007-07-11T13:56:12Z<p>Caznoob: /* Is Missionization more important than cultural diversity? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Free-speech is allowed as far as it would be honest and courteous. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:09, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is Missionization more important than cultural diversity? ==<br />
<br />
I often run into issues because I am a Christian and am studying Anthropology in university. Personally I have seen many accounts where various Christian sects have destroyed entire peoples and their ways of living. I also know from church and the bible that God will forgive any who ask him for forgiveness. It is not stated that he/she must ask in English, Latin or any specific language or in any specific way. I am also aware that God calls Christians to spread his word, but God also says to respect and love your neighbours and enemies. I would appreciate some other views supportive or in opposition to my own please. After all it is difference that makes us special to each other and God. --[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 09:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Leftist&diff=225159Talk:Leftist2007-07-10T19:48:09Z<p>Caznoob: /* Communism */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a total contradiction:<br />
<br />
:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists<br />
<br />
People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.<br />
<br />
:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:<br />
# leftist?<br />
# rightist?<br />
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Communism==<br />
<br />
::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I was talking about this quote, <br />
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''<br />
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So called communism as it has been practiced thus far is NOT true communism. Therefore it cannot be oppressive. For the former USSR to have been a communist nation their could not be a leader, since they would be elevated above everybody else. This goes in opposition to the definition of communism. All "communist" experiments thus far have been flawed because they have leaders. <br />
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 13:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Interesting debate; kinda like [[Hell]] is not really Hell because, according to the Bible, God is light. Light generates heat, thus where God does not dwell, there is no light. Hence there are no fires of Hell, because God is the source of light, heat, and warmth. So, contrary to popular misconceptions, Hell is not really full of eternal fire, rather eternal darkness. Being dark, there is no light or heat. IOW, Hell really is a freezing cold place because there is no light. <br />
<br />
:Finally got that straighten out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
For an interesting idea of hell read "Paradise Lost" by John Milton. Anyways, your post is very true about hell but regardless it says nothing about communism.--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 14:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?<br />
<br />
:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.<br />
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.<br />
<br />
::I thought this definition: <br />
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics. <br />
::was somewhat better than:<br />
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.<br />
::What can others add, what do they think?<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''<br />
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.<br />
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.<br />
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.<br />
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]<br />
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]<br />
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]<br />
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.<br />
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::So one of these cites says, "''reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , [[communism]]'''". Can we factually say [[Cuba]] has failed in this regard?<br />
::::*"''The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own''"<br />
::::ahhhh, those well sourced edits at [[Political spectrum]] were all added by me [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=103102][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=next&oldid=103136], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=105654&oldid=95884]<br />
::::Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Fair enough. Well at least the [[Reign of Terror]] stuff disappeared .[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::RobS has a new ally. Me. Socialism is the mother of all the parasite leftist "ism's", including Nazism. FDR's concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans just didn't have gas chambers. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 30 June 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Leftist&diff=224910Talk:Leftist2007-07-10T18:12:20Z<p>Caznoob: /* Communism */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a total contradiction:<br />
<br />
:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists<br />
<br />
People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.<br />
<br />
:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:<br />
# leftist?<br />
# rightist?<br />
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Communism==<br />
<br />
::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I was talking about this quote, <br />
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''<br />
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So called communism as it has been practiced thus far is NOT true communism. Therefore it cannot be oppressive. For the former USSR to have been a communist nation their could not be a leader, since they would be elevated above everybody else. This goes in opposition to the definition of communism. All "communist" experiments thus far have been flawed because they have leaders. <br />
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 13:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Interesting debate; kinda like [[Hell]] is not really Hell because, according to the Bible, God is light. Light generates heat, thus where God does not dwell, there is no light. Hence there are no fires of Hell, because God is the source of light, heat, and warmth. So, contrary to popular misconceptions, Hell is not really full of eternal fire, rather eternal darkness. Being dark, there is no light or heat. IOW, Hell really is a freezing cold place because there is no light. <br />
<br />
:Finally got that straighten out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
For an interesting idea of hell read "Paradise Lost" by John Milton. However, your post is very true about hell but regardless it says nothing about communism.--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 14:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?<br />
<br />
:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.<br />
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.<br />
<br />
::I thought this definition: <br />
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics. <br />
::was somewhat better than:<br />
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.<br />
::What can others add, what do they think?<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''<br />
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.<br />
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.<br />
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.<br />
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]<br />
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]<br />
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]<br />
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.<br />
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::So one of these cites says, "''reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , [[communism]]'''". Can we factually say [[Cuba]] has failed in this regard?<br />
::::*"''The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own''"<br />
::::ahhhh, those well sourced edits at [[Political spectrum]] were all added by me [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=103102][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=next&oldid=103136], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=105654&oldid=95884]<br />
::::Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Fair enough. Well at least the [[Reign of Terror]] stuff disappeared .[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::RobS has a new ally. Me. Socialism is the mother of all the parasite leftist "ism's", including Nazism. FDR's concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans just didn't have gas chambers. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 30 June 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Caznoob&diff=224896User talk:Caznoob2007-07-10T18:01:37Z<p>Caznoob: Is Missionization more important than cultural diversity?</p>
<hr />
<div>Free-speech is allowed as far as it would be honest and courteous. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:09, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is Missionization more important than cultural diversity? ==<br />
<br />
I often run into issues because I am a Christian and am studying Anthropology in university. Personally I have seen many accounts where various Christian sects have destroyed entire peoples and their ways of living. I also know from church and the bible that God will forgive any who ask him for forgiveness. It is not stated that he/she must ask in English, Latin or any specific language or in any specific way. I am also aware that God calls Christians to spread his word, but God also says to respect and love your neighbours and enemies. I would appreciate some other views supportive or in opposition to my own please. After all it is difference that makes us special to each other and God.--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 14:01, 10 July 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Leftist&diff=224877Talk:Leftist2007-07-10T17:49:40Z<p>Caznoob: /* Communism */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a total contradiction:<br />
<br />
:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists<br />
<br />
People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.<br />
<br />
:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:<br />
# leftist?<br />
# rightist?<br />
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Communism==<br />
<br />
::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I was talking about this quote, <br />
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''<br />
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So called communism as it has been practiced thus far is NOT true communism. Therefore it cannot be oppressive. For the former USSR to have been a communist nation their could not be a leader, since they would be elevated above everybody else. This goes in opposition to the definition of communism. All "communist" experiments thus far have been flawed because they have leaders. <br />
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 13:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?<br />
<br />
:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.<br />
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.<br />
<br />
::I thought this definition: <br />
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics. <br />
::was somewhat better than:<br />
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.<br />
::What can others add, what do they think?<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''<br />
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.<br />
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.<br />
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.<br />
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]<br />
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]<br />
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]<br />
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.<br />
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::So one of these cites says, "''reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , [[communism]]'''". Can we factually say [[Cuba]] has failed in this regard?<br />
::::*"''The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own''"<br />
::::ahhhh, those well sourced edits at [[Political spectrum]] were all added by me [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=103102][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=next&oldid=103136], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=105654&oldid=95884]<br />
::::Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Fair enough. Well at least the [[Reign of Terror]] stuff disappeared .[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::RobS has a new ally. Me. Socialism is the mother of all the parasite leftist "ism's", including Nazism. FDR's concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans just didn't have gas chambers. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 30 June 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Leftist&diff=224875Talk:Leftist2007-07-10T17:48:27Z<p>Caznoob: /* Communism */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a total contradiction:<br />
<br />
:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists<br />
<br />
People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.<br />
<br />
:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:<br />
# leftist?<br />
# rightist?<br />
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Communism==<br />
<br />
::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I was talking about this quote, <br />
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''<br />
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So called communism as it has been practiced thus far is NOT true communism. Therefore it cannot be oppressive. For the former USSR to have been communism their could not be a leader since they would be elevated above everybody else which goes in opposition to the definition of communism. All "communist" experiments thus far have been flawed because they have leaders. <br />
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 13:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?<br />
<br />
:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.<br />
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.<br />
<br />
::I thought this definition: <br />
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics. <br />
::was somewhat better than:<br />
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.<br />
::What can others add, what do they think?<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''<br />
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.<br />
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.<br />
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.<br />
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.<br />
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]<br />
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]<br />
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]<br />
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.<br />
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.<br />
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::So one of these cites says, "''reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , [[communism]]'''". Can we factually say [[Cuba]] has failed in this regard?<br />
::::*"''The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own''"<br />
::::ahhhh, those well sourced edits at [[Political spectrum]] were all added by me [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=103102][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=next&oldid=103136], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=105654&oldid=95884]<br />
::::Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Fair enough. Well at least the [[Reign of Terror]] stuff disappeared .[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::RobS has a new ally. Me. Socialism is the mother of all the parasite leftist "ism's", including Nazism. FDR's concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans just didn't have gas chambers. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 30 June 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:About&diff=223538Conservapedia talk:About2007-07-09T21:46:32Z<p>Caznoob: /* Finally! */</p>
<hr />
<div>Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?<br />
<br />
Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.<br />
<br />
==Finally!==<br />
<br />
Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.<br />
<br />
And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}<br />
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.<br />
Caznoob<br />
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What kind?==<br />
<br />
"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."<br />
<br />
What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪ<small>ɺ</small>øʟɛ]] <sub>( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢<small>ʘ</small>и†ʀ¡<small>β</small>s]] )</sub> 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.<br />
<br />
When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!<br />
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?<br />
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that<br />
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists<br />
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient? <br />
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate<br />
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== WHAT? ==<br />
<br />
Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While<br />
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site. <br />
Good luck!<br />
<br />
:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias ==<br />
<br />
Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.<br />
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This says it all. ==<br />
<br />
"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!<br />
<br />
== Liberal Theologians ==<br />
<br />
If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.<br />
<br />
Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.<br />
<br />
Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Worry Not ==<br />
<br />
Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'<br />
<br />
The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?<br />
<br />
== Reliability ==<br />
<br />
Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."<br />
<br />
This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.<br />
<br />
:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias? ==<br />
<br />
An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==<br />
<br />
:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project: <br />
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.<br />
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).<br />
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007<br />
<br />
Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit request: copyright link ==<br />
<br />
As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:<br />
<br />
:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].<br />
<br />
Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br />
<br />
I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br />
<br />
== Well, I'm pleased. ==<br />
<br />
On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]<br />
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Moderapedia?==<br />
<br />
When are we moderates going to get a wiki?<br />
<br />
Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|PandaBear}}<br />
<br />
== Who gives the facts? God? ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.<br />
<br />
--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman<br />
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:About&diff=223492Conservapedia talk:About2007-07-09T21:14:53Z<p>Caznoob: /* Finally! */</p>
<hr />
<div>Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?<br />
<br />
Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.<br />
<br />
==Finally!==<br />
<br />
Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.<br />
<br />
And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}<br />
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely and Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.<br />
Caznoob<br />
<br />
==What kind?==<br />
<br />
"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."<br />
<br />
What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪ<small>ɺ</small>øʟɛ]] <sub>( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢<small>ʘ</small>и†ʀ¡<small>β</small>s]] )</sub> 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.<br />
<br />
When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!<br />
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?<br />
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that<br />
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists<br />
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient? <br />
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate<br />
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== WHAT? ==<br />
<br />
Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While<br />
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site. <br />
Good luck!<br />
<br />
:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias ==<br />
<br />
Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.<br />
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This says it all. ==<br />
<br />
"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!<br />
<br />
== Liberal Theologians ==<br />
<br />
If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.<br />
<br />
Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.<br />
<br />
Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Worry Not ==<br />
<br />
Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'<br />
<br />
The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?<br />
<br />
== Reliability ==<br />
<br />
Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."<br />
<br />
This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.<br />
<br />
:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias? ==<br />
<br />
An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==<br />
<br />
:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project: <br />
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.<br />
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).<br />
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007<br />
<br />
Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit request: copyright link ==<br />
<br />
As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:<br />
<br />
:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].<br />
<br />
Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br />
<br />
I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br />
<br />
== Well, I'm pleased. ==<br />
<br />
On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]<br />
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Moderapedia?==<br />
<br />
When are we moderates going to get a wiki?<br />
<br />
Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|PandaBear}}<br />
<br />
== Who gives the facts? God? ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.<br />
<br />
--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman<br />
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:About&diff=223490Conservapedia talk:About2007-07-09T21:14:12Z<p>Caznoob: /* Finally! */</p>
<hr />
<div>Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?<br />
<br />
Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.<br />
<br />
==Finally!==<br />
<br />
Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.<br />
<br />
And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}<br />
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely and Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.<br />
<br />
==What kind?==<br />
<br />
"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."<br />
<br />
What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪ<small>ɺ</small>øʟɛ]] <sub>( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢<small>ʘ</small>и†ʀ¡<small>β</small>s]] )</sub> 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.<br />
<br />
When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!<br />
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?<br />
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that<br />
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists<br />
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient? <br />
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate<br />
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== WHAT? ==<br />
<br />
Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While<br />
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site. <br />
Good luck!<br />
<br />
:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias ==<br />
<br />
Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.<br />
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This says it all. ==<br />
<br />
"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!<br />
<br />
== Liberal Theologians ==<br />
<br />
If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.<br />
<br />
Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.<br />
<br />
Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Worry Not ==<br />
<br />
Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'<br />
<br />
The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?<br />
<br />
== Reliability ==<br />
<br />
Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."<br />
<br />
This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.<br />
<br />
:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias? ==<br />
<br />
An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==<br />
<br />
:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project: <br />
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.<br />
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).<br />
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007<br />
<br />
Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit request: copyright link ==<br />
<br />
As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:<br />
<br />
:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].<br />
<br />
Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br />
<br />
I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br />
<br />
== Well, I'm pleased. ==<br />
<br />
On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]<br />
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Moderapedia?==<br />
<br />
When are we moderates going to get a wiki?<br />
<br />
Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|PandaBear}}<br />
<br />
== Who gives the facts? God? ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.<br />
<br />
--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman<br />
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)</div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Caznoob&diff=223474User talk:Caznoob2007-07-09T21:02:49Z<p>Caznoob: Removing all content from page</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Caznoobhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Caznoob&diff=223468User talk:Caznoob2007-07-09T20:59:19Z<p>Caznoob: New page: Conservapedia: A pathetic attempt at an online encyclopedia where free-speech is not allowed. Conservapedia originated because conservatives did not like their beliefs and views being shot...</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservapedia: A pathetic attempt at an online encyclopedia where free-speech is not allowed. Conservapedia originated because conservatives did not like their beliefs and views being shot to pieces by open-minded free speaking people.</div>Caznoob