Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-05-16T21:08:18Z

Dereklad:

{{debate}}

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articals( the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

conservapedia is too liberal.

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-05-16T21:05:52Z

Dereklad: formatting

why are you so paranoid about wikipedia? do you see it as a threat to evangelical christianity?

Evangelical

2008-05-16T21:03:24Z

Dereklad:

Generically, '''evangelical''' is a person whose beliefs are in agreement with [[Gospel]] and who communicates his [[faith]] to others so that they may benefit also. It may also describe a person whose beliefs are marked by an ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause<ref>[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evangelical Princeton University]</ref> such as [[Christianity]]. Evangelical Christians have, in addition to spreading the word of God, have helped bring much needed medical and educational services to poor parts of the world,as part of their missionary activities. Some evangelicals might sometimes run the risk of not considering other people's points of view fully.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[Evangelical Christians]]
*[[Evangelical atheist]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Christian Terms]]

Matthew Shepard

2008-05-16T20:57:38Z

Dereklad:

[[Image:MatthewShepard.jpg|left]]
'''Matthew Shepard''' (1976-1998) was an American college student from [[Wyoming]]. On October 7th, 1998, he was savagely beaten and robbed by two men, and died on October 12th. The killers were heavily involved in drugs and had met Shepard in a bar, giving him a ride afterwards.

[[Homosexual]] activists converted this drug-related killing <ref>Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide... What it came down to, really, is drugs and money." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070810/EDITORIAL/108100014/1013/editorial Washington Times Editorial] 8/10/2007 </ref> into a [[hate crime]] even though the prosecution never described the killing as a hate crime.<ref name="courttv">http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mckinney/110399_verdict_ctv.html</ref> Activists claimed even before the details of the crime were known that the murder was due to anti-gay bias. Once the crime was discovered, Shepard's friends "were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref name="20/20" />

A misguided defense of one of the killers tried to make an issue of Shepard's [[homosexuality]] in order to employ a ""gay panic defense" based upon the defendant's alleged prior homosexual experiences, but this was rejected by the judge.<ref name="courttv"/> Unsurprisingly, one of Shepard's killers claimed in an interview on 20/20 that '''money and drugs motivated their actions that night, not hatred of gays'''.<ref name="20/20">[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1 20/20 News Story on Matthew Shepard]</ref> One of the girlfriends of the accused testified that they had planned to pretend to be homosexuals so that they could rob Shepard.<ref name="courttv"/>

Ever since Shepard's death it has been cited by homosexual activists to promote legislation to classify attacks against homosexuals as a [[hate crime]] that would be punished more severely than a crime against a heterosexual. All legislation, both in Wyoming and on the national level, has failed, but under [[Democratic]] leadership the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] passed a hate crimes bill in 2007.<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/31008.html</ref> President [[George W. Bush]] has vowed to veto it.

== External links ==
*[http://homes.thedailycamera.com/extra/shepard/ Matthew Shepard Murder] The Daily Camera.

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shepard, Matthew}}

[[category:Americans]]

Homosexuality and Murders

2008-05-16T20:55:36Z

Dereklad:

Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 regarding '''homosexual murders''' that [[homosexuality|homosexual]] murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female.<ref>[http://www.serve.com/PHIHOM/articles/homoserial.htm Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation By Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. Former Commander, Bronx Homicide, NYPD]</ref> In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'' in regards to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.<ref name="jiafm">[http://medind.nic.in/jal/t05/i3/jalt05i3p184.pdf SEX RELATED HOMICIDES AND OFFENDERS -A MEDICO-LEGALISTS VIEW, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, Dr. S.K.Dhattarwal, ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'', 2005 ; 27 (3). ISSN 0971 -0973]</ref>. What a surprise. Most murders are inter-family - if a person is gay, the chances are that they will murder someone in their family i.e. their partner.

The statements above are not surprising given the studies regarding [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples and domestic violence]].
==Homosexual Murders and Brutality==
According to the [[New York Times]], Dr. [[William Eckert]] was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator [[Robert F. Kennedy]] and the [[Charles Manson]] murders.<ref name="nyt">[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DE123FF937A1575AC0A96F958260 ''New York Times'', William Eckert, 73, Medical Sleuth in Major Cases By WILLIAM H. HONAN, September 24, 1999]</ref> Dr. Eckert founded the ''American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology''.<ref name="nyt" /> <ref name="time">[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992160,00.html Time Magazine, Milestones by By VAL CASTRONOVO, MATTHEW COOPER, AUTUMN DE LEON, DANIEL S. LEVY, LINA LOFARO, CHRIS TAYLOR AND DAVID E. THIGPEN, October 9, 1999]</ref> According to ''[[Time]]'' magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and forensics teams.<ref name="time" />

Dr. Eckert wrote regarding homosexual murders the following:
{{cquote|Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}
[[Image:0-picture.jpg‎|thumbnail|180px|right|The eminent pathologists [[Bernard Knight]] and [[Pekka Saukko]] stated that it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.]]
[[Bernard Knight]] CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, FHKCPath, DMJ (Path) was a Professor of Forensic Pathology in the University of Wales until he retired in 1996.<ref name="knight">http://bernard-knight.mysite.orange.co.uk/index.jhtml</ref> In 1993 he was made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) for his services to forensic medicine.<ref name="knight" /><ref name="kfp">Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, foreword</ref> Dr. Bernard Knight has been involved in many notorious murder cases, including [[Fred West]] and [[Rosemary West]], [[Roberto Calvi]] (the Vatican banker), the child killer [[Mary Bell]], and the [[Steven Truscott|Truscott case]] in [[Canada]].<ref name="knight" />
Dr. [[Pekka Saukko]] is Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turku in [[Finland]].<ref name="kfp" /> Dr. Saukko is also the editor of ''Forensic Science International''.<ref>http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/books_2.htm</ref> Doctors Knight and Saukko coauthored a pathology textbook entitled ''Knight's Forensic Pathology'' in 2004 which stated the following:
{{cquote|As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428</ref>}}

The previously cited article in the ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'' states regarding homosexual murders the following: "These "Lovers' quarrels" between male homosexuals manifest an increased level of violence due to the fact that the parties involved in the emotional conflict are both sexual aggressors."<ref name="jiafm" />

''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and murders:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random [[Hate crime|hate crime]].<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The previously cited pathology textbook by Knight and Saukko stated the following: "In addition, quite a number of fatal altercations arise because a heterosexual man becomes violent when importuned by a homosexual."<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428-429</ref>
==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Homicide]]