Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Terri Schiavo

2007-08-02T22:48:28Z

Digitamer81:

I Believe the inclusion of Angel Raisch, drug abuser, on this list of Schiavo-like individuals, is extremely inappropriate. Terri was a bulimic, and possibly the victim of domestic abuse, not a law-flouting hippie pursuing selfish ends. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Spoon, discuss on talk first before including. Raich's 'starvation' strains credulity given the well-known affects of marijuana intake upon appetite. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I insist that Raich, as she is not in a vegetative state, is not in any way comparable to Terri. Angel Raich can eat, if she choses to. She simply prefers to revel in her sinfulness and fails to take responsibility for her food intake in a responsible, law-abiding, fashion. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Did anyone notice that the sources listed DIRECTLY contradict the opinions expressed in the article? Whomever is the author of the article should either find new sources or take out any subjective comments. Otherwise you render the viewpoints within as false. {{unsigned|DrCody}}

:::Yes, this page certaintly requires sources that better support the statements made, and perhaps more information regarding the legal debate which took place.--[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 16:18, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

"Many patients observed to be in a brain-damaged state like Terri's have surprisingly recovered". This quote is given with a source about a fireman who started speaking again after so long.

"There have been several other similar cases of brain recovery in the US.

Arkansas car accident victim Terry Wallis woke up two years ago after 19 years in a coma and began speaking to his family.

And Tennessee police officer Gary Dockery, paralysed and mute after a shooting in 1988, started speaking again eight years later. He died of a blood clot on the lung in 1997.

None of the victims was in a persistent vegetative state like Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman who died last month after her feeding tube was removed." This quote is from the source posted here on Conservapedia. Notice that it contradicts the article. Mainly the last line of the quote. Terri was in a PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE, these people listed in the article, were not.

Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

2007-07-20T20:27:23Z

Digitamer81:

Opinions please, both for and against:

== FOR ==
conservapedia has thousands of trustworthy articles. 50something, you base this on your experiences with ONE article([[Adultery]]), right? look at some others.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

ITs Called Conservapedia, since it has part of the word "Conservtive" in it you know it will represent a fair and balanced point of view, well I guess it depends how you look at it. -RG :]

== AGAINST ==

I have to say, I keep up with Conservapedia daily, mostly because I don't agree with the views of the website. I do have to point out something. Conservapedia constantly points out smears against conservatives and false articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet found a smear against Conservapedia itself. Why not lay off the smearing of other sites when they aren't smearing you in the first place? From Steven, Digitamer81

Of course not, not yet. the entire goal is to eliminate bias, add facts, and eventually make it reliable. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. it is an encyclopedia that tells consevitives what they want to hear and forces conservitive ideals upon others.{{unsigned|1718}}

:Oh, be reasonable. It doesn't force ideals on anyone. No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

No. An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion. Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes. References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference. For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
::adultery is one out of what, 9000 articles? what other examples do you have?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::Hahhaha. Where do I begin?[[User:50something|50something]]
:::Bohdan, look at [[Special:Popularpages]]. Most of them, well, suck. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I guess, but i dont think that they represent the majority of articles here. I have found that many of the non-controversial articles are reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Bohdan, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. I'm trying to do my part, as I am sure you are. I know Hoji has done a lot.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:So that you know someone is addressing you?[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. [[User:50something|50something]]
:where is the opinion in the [[Lindisfarne]] article? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. [[User:50something|50something]]

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know ''which'' parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slant, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. [[User:50something|50something]]

Oh, also - sysops - [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], for example - are guilty of 'editing the record'. In the case of the sysop quoted, you will see how often he removes comments from his own User:Talk page. Changing the record of history is one of the most dangerous sins against knowledge, and was popularly used by [[Stalin]] among others. [[User:50something|50something]]

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable. I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia. Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar? [[User:50something|50something]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

2007-07-20T20:26:27Z

Digitamer81:

Opinions please, both for and against:

== FOR ==
conservapedia has thousands of trustworthy articles. 50something, you base this on your experiences with ONE article([[Adultery]]), right? look at some others.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

ITs Called Conservapedia, since it has part of the word "Conservtive" in it you know it will represent a fair and balanced point of view, well I guess it depends how you look at it. -RG :]

== AGAINST ==

I have to say, I keep up with Conservapedia daily, mostly because I don't agree with the views of the website. I do have to point out something. Conservapedia constantly points out smears against conservatives and false articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet found a smear against Conservapedia itself. Why not lay off the smearing of other sites when they aren't smearing you in the first place?

Of course not, not yet. the entire goal is to eliminate bias, add facts, and eventually make it reliable. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. it is an encyclopedia that tells consevitives what they want to hear and forces conservitive ideals upon others.{{unsigned|1718}}

:Oh, be reasonable. It doesn't force ideals on anyone. No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

No. An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion. Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes. References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference. For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
::adultery is one out of what, 9000 articles? what other examples do you have?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::Hahhaha. Where do I begin?[[User:50something|50something]]
:::Bohdan, look at [[Special:Popularpages]]. Most of them, well, suck. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I guess, but i dont think that they represent the majority of articles here. I have found that many of the non-controversial articles are reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Bohdan, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. I'm trying to do my part, as I am sure you are. I know Hoji has done a lot.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:So that you know someone is addressing you?[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. [[User:50something|50something]]
:where is the opinion in the [[Lindisfarne]] article? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. [[User:50something|50something]]

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know ''which'' parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slant, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. [[User:50something|50something]]

Oh, also - sysops - [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], for example - are guilty of 'editing the record'. In the case of the sysop quoted, you will see how often he removes comments from his own User:Talk page. Changing the record of history is one of the most dangerous sins against knowledge, and was popularly used by [[Stalin]] among others. [[User:50something|50something]]

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable. I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia. Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar? [[User:50something|50something]]