Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Stephen Colbert

2007-03-15T10:24:28Z

Dialecticftw:

Any reason why the part about the Correspondents' Dinner was removed? Also the statement about Colbert's intention with the Wikipedia vandalizing is speculative at best and should probably be removed.--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a link to the Correspondents' Dinner speech on Google Video: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert+white+house Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner]

The Sunday school teacher remark needs a cite--I know it's true, but it really should be cited. Here's a good website, I'd edit if I could. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/) Also, the Correspondent's dinner should be added. As much as I hate what he did, it is our duty to tell the truth on this site. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why would you hate what he did? He's the greatest American ever! Stephen Colbert is a champion of truth and justice. Come on, he got Captain America's shield!!--[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Elephants

2007-03-15T10:23:14Z

Dialecticftw:

Elephants are large quadrupedal [[mammals]] native to [[Africa]] and [[India]]. The elephant is noted for its long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects.

Elephants are not mentioned directly in the [[Bible]]. They were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the Flood on [[Noah's Ark]] (Genesis 7:7-8). The Apocryphal book [[1 Maccabees]] mentions thirty-two elephants sent by the Persian king Antiochus to attack [[Judas Machabeus]]. Numerous references are made to [[ivory]], a substance created from their tusks and worth great amounts.

In more recent times, domestic elephants have been used for riding, carrying heavy loads, and [[war|war elephants]].

Centuries of hunting elephants for their ivory has dwindled the population of these animals. Renewed efforts at stewardship have caused a population boom, with the number of elephants in Africa alone tripling in the last decade.

An elephant is the symbol of the [[Republican Party]].

Recently, the population of elephants has tripled.

== Support for Creationism ==
One of the compelling pieces of evidence against evolution is that scientists cannot decide what elephants could have evolved from<ref>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b3</ref>. Many scientists point to the unlikely idea that elephants evolved from sea cows and water dwelling hyraxes<ref>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b3</ref>. The support for this point of view is that elephants might have used their trunks for snorkels.

In the past, there were many different types of elephants like [[mammoth|mammoths]] and [[mastodon|mastodons]], but most creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the ark and that these species perished with the [[dinosaurs]]{{fact}}.

==References==
<references/>

Bill O'Reilly

2007-03-15T10:20:34Z

Dialecticftw:

Bill O'Reilly is a scum-bag.

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-03-15T10:17:37Z

Dialecticftw: /* Never, or at most rarely: */

?????

Could you please give me an example of their liberal bias? I use Wikipedia all the time and it's always a reliable and in-depth encyclopedia.

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

== No. Not always: ==

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

Amen. --[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was world war inevitable?

2007-03-15T10:09:39Z

Dialecticftw: /* '''None of the Above:''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

== '''Yes:''' ==
Probably
Chain Reaction...
All of the alliances made leading up to WWI made it somewhat inevitable. it was inevitable that something (The assasination of ) would spark a fight wich would trigger a chain reaction of all of the alliances between th european powers. If both sides had actually wanted to avoid war then ''maybe'' it would have been avoided. However that was not the case.

All it takes is one person determined to fight...
In the case of WWII Hitler and the Japanese were determined to take over the world. (At least Europe and Asia) The rest of the world was not about to let that happen without a fight. This made WWII inevitable.

== '''No:''' ==

War is almost never "inevitable". War results when both sides think they can win, and believe that the bloodshed is worth it. But both sides cannot win a contest so faulty information is part of the problem.
''Or one side could believe that to die fighting is better than to die in bondage.''

For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars. What happened that made Christians believe in war against each other?
''I don't think that the Axis were Christian... Hitler's racism was based on a Darwinian worldview, (Survival of the fittest) and the Japanese had their own religion. (I may be wrong but I think they Believed that their Emperor was basically God)''

There is always a chance... Hitler could have had a stroke and died. The emperor of Japan could have been assasinated; The war was not a sure thing until it already happened.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

''If you look at it that way, then nothing is ever inevitable.''

The only inevitable thing is a promise of God; It was inevitable that Isaac would be born, it was inevitable that Jesus come, it is inevitable that the antichrist take over the world.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Contrary to the top notion, war can also be fought by states who don't expect a military victory. Some states may be willing to fight simply to prove their willingness to defend a policy (or even their sovereignty) simply as a means of deterrence against further acts of aggression. The Munich Analogy invoked by so many hawks nowadays may or may not be a legitimate argument these days. Democratic peace theory has proven relatively sound, so conflict between such states as were involved in WWII (if history were to repeat itself today) would likely be watered down by treaties or intervened upon by some sort of international order. As to the question of whether (I am assuming WWII, WWI was quite an unfortunate mousetrap of events) world war was inevitable, I have to answer no. Unfortunately by 1938 and the Sudetenland debacle, it was probably too late, and given greater international consensus on Wilsonian liberalism an effective intervention could have been possible in the early stages of German rearmament and Hitler's ascent to power. The pacific theatre is an interesting case. Post- Russo-Japan war Japan has been accused of being "asianist" to a fault. Though proletarian/communist movements were prevalent in Taisho-democracy era Japan, growing authoritarian power (totalitarian by some accounts, however the emperor Showa, or Hirohito, was merely a puppet for political elites) was able to quelch such uprisings and effectively redirect the growing mass-cultural mediums of Japan into those of nationalist predilections. For those interested in more Japanese innovation in the early use of mass media should check out an old film called Northern Lights, from 1941.

Brian

:'''Reply''' Why does God have to come into everything!?? All those things are only inevitable if you take the bible as fact. The Catholic Church even acknowledges that the bible is not a history text book.[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

== '''None of the Above:''' ==

Here's the real question, and it is one that perhaps can't be answered: Is a future world war inevitable?

--[[User:Janedoe|jane doe]] 23:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Don't see why world war would be inevitable. In 5000 years of recorded history, world war was a peculiar attribute of only one century: the 20th century. It was the product of philosophies of that century and it should be no more inevitable than the Black Plague would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

"World War" was only used to describe WW1 and WW2. If you look back at Classical Antiquity (where the world population was about, say, 100 million or less), many of the wars then were far deadlier per capita than either of the world wars. And we're talking about ''man'' here... Not every person accepts Jesus. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Not every person accepts Jesus." What exactly do you mean by that? --[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Star Wars

2007-03-15T10:06:54Z

Dialecticftw:

'''Star Wars''' is a film saga created by American director [[George Lucas]]. The movies that were made earlier (Episodes 4, 5, and 6) are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first "summer blockbusters" ever made. The latter films (Episodes 1, 2, and 3) are not.

Recent findings have confirmed that George Lucas, who is most diligent in his study and faithful devotion to the historical dialectic and the will of the proletariat, DOES plan on finishing the epic Star Wars saga, which will parallel the eventual fall of Capitalism and the lie that is Democracy.

Episodes 7, 8 and 9 will, reportedly, show the Star Wars Universe's steady, patient transition into a rule by the true will of the people, a commune of the working class that spans an entire Galaxy.

Star Wars

2007-03-15T10:05:32Z

Dialecticftw:

'''Star Wars''' is a film saga created by American director [[George Lucas]]. The movies that were made earlier (Episodes 4, 5, and 6) are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first "summer blockbusters" ever made. The latter films (Episodes 1, 2, and 3) are not.

Recent findings have confirmed that George Lucas, who is most diligent in his study and faithful devotion to the historical dialectic and the will of the proletariat, DOES plan on finishing the epic Star Wars saga, which will parallel the eventual fall of Capitalism and the lie that is Democracy.

Episodes 7, 8 and 9 will, reportedly, show the Star Wars Universe's steady, patient transition into the a rule by the true will of the people, a commune of the working class that spans an entire Galaxy.