Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Zionism

2007-11-04T21:37:28Z

NeoCon4Life:

A movement to reestablish the [[Israel|Jewish state]] in the British Mandate of [[Palestine]]. The movement was started in the late 1800's by [[Theodor Herzl]], and in 1948 the modern state of [[Israel]] was established on a piece of land granted by the [[United Nations]] with the support of [[Great Britain]], the nation which had formerly controlled the land.
Not all Jews are Zionists, Ultra-religious Jews, such as the [[Neturei Karta]] sect, are [[Anti-zionism|anti-Zionist]] for theological reasons. Recently, Zionism has gained influence among American Jews resulting in what some have dubbed the Israel Lobby. The term is used to refer to the numerous pro-Israel interest groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee which some believe to have an excessive amount of influence over US policy. Although many who are opposed to the Israel Lobby have a problem with the power of interest groups and lobbying organizations in general, not just the Israel Lobby.

==Opposition to Zionism==

The Palestinians who have lost their homes in the creation of [[Israel]] are among those opposed to its existence. Among Jews, the orthodox Neturei Karta group opposes Zionism as [[blasphemy]]. Zionism was formerly opposed by some powerful Jews who feared that the creation of a Jewish state would cause them to lose their power and influence (such as ownership of newspapers and real estate), as such control could not be exercised if many Jews migrated to Israel. Opposition also comes from some [[racist|anti-racists]], who oppose Zionism's promotion of Jewish racial identity. It is important to note that many confuse anti-Zionism with Antisemitism, however, this is mostly out of ignorance.

== See also ==

*[[Yasser Arafat]]
*[[Menachem Begin]]

== Links ==

*[http://www.zionism-israel.com/ Zionism and Israel Information Center]
*[http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm Zionism and the Creation of Israel]
*http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
*http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Israel]]

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2007-11-04T21:24:32Z

NeoCon4Life: Casualty Figures are Incorrect

Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display, but the weakness of the writers. The sad thing is that its founder is one of the weakest writers here.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 14:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

that was mean to say. you could of said it nicer. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::so it goes --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised to hear the Kurt Vonnegut said “there are no atheists in foxholes”. So I looked at the link given to support that quote, only to discover that the full quote was, “The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front." ” The context makes it clear that the character speaking (which we probably should not equate to Kurt Vonnegut as it comes from Hocus-Pocus which is not his most biographical novel) does not believe the truth of the claim “there are no atheists in foxholes”—the chaplain doesn’t know the truth of the front, which is where the foxholes are.
If the site wants a quote to show that Vonnegut was respectful of religion, you could replace it with the quote from his last collection of essays, "if I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: 'The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'" (Quoted at NPR’s remembrance of Vonnegut here [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554280] )--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

More recently Vonnegut wrote something much more pointed, which I tried to include as a counterpoit in this article '''However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " I <ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C</ref>'''
I was immediately deleted and the article locked. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but I do think this distortation is a diservice to Vonnegut's legacy and obviously contra-factual. Why include one but not the other. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== "See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!" ==

Reginod, NothingVentured - You are correct. Kurt Vonnegut has been ''deliberately'' misquoted in this article to portray him as "respectful to those with faith," when in fact he's a noted critic and satirist of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This entry's obvious deceptions clearly show exactly what Conservapedia is: an intentional distortion of the truth, or more simply put, lies.

What's particularly laughable is the need of the editors to somehow dilute the fact of his avowed atheism by inserting a made-up claim of Vonnegut being "respectful of those with faith." Its almost an admission that being "with faith" is a form of disability or mental hindrance which the faithless must patronize. One has to think that somehow Kurt Vonnegut's mainstream celebrity status combined with his vocal atheism are a threat to Conservapedia and its cadre of weak-willed admins. Their solution? Lie about what Vonnegut said, and offer it as a tacit lesson to other atheists: You should follow this example and be "respectful" to people "with faith," by patronizing their irrational, unfounded, and ridiculous beliefs, because [Christian] religious beliefs are sacred, and should be accorded more respect than any other beliefs, regardless of merit.

Its no surprise that this article can't be edited. The truth about Kurt Vonnegut is too damaging to Conservapedia's purpose of Christian evangelism through disinformation. --[[User:TheDecider|TheDecider]] 19:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Casualty Figures are Incorrect ==

It has since surfaced that the casualty figures for the Dresden firebombing were greatly inflated by David Irving, who has recently been revealed as a Nazi-sympathizer, whose books on the subject were considered the definitive source on the Dresden raids for the 70's and 80's. I believe the revised death toll is between 20,000-40,000, and I'm positive that it's below 80,000 dead. As such, it should be changed as it is currently misinformation.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:24, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hiroshima

2007-11-04T21:17:17Z

NeoCon4Life:

'''Hiroshima''' is an industrial city in [[Japan]], most famous for being the target of the first [[atomic bomb|atomic weapon]] used in [[war]]fare, just prior to the Japanese [[surrender]] at the end of [[World War II]]. "[[Little Boy]]" was dropped on Hiroshima in August 9th, 1945 killing approximately 140,000 people. The surrender came quickly after the [[United States]] made the point that they were serious, by dropping "[[Fat Man]]" on [[Nagasaki]], which was, so far, the last use of these weapons. Hiroshima was completely annihilated by the Little Boy bomb, but has been rebuilt and is now a flourishing city.

[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Japan]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-11-04T21:11:39Z

NeoCon4Life: /* Requested edits */

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --[[User:9820|9820]] 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There is an error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Founding" section. "quit" instead of "quite"--[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:34, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

A lot of the statements in the article are not sourced and some are simply pure conjecture, also there is an obvious pro-Fox bias.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*That is in fact more [[deceit]]. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== bias. ==

this article reads like fox news, please consider moving to conserva-

owait, its already here.

facts < politics

flaming appreciated, its a bit cold here. {{unsigned|Headsup}}

EXCUSE ME!!! is this an article or an advertisment for fox news channel????? how about some facts. eg, when did it start broadcasting, where does it broadcast besides the united states, who are its directors, what are its main topics and programmes??? {{unsigned|Plqgnmv}}

*Okay, I excuse you. Now, how about you doing what editors are supposed to do, and suggest specifics here, or ask that it be unlocked for you to add them? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Internal Links==
Both [[Chris Wallace]] and [[Brit Hume]] lack internal links in this article, even though there are articles on both of them. You might want to change that. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:46, 12 September 2007 (EDT)