https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=RepublicanConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-10-07T21:25:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Death&diff=78164Death2007-03-31T22:48:19Z<p>Republican: Reverted edits by Likekindness (Talk); changed back to last version by The Haunted Angel</p>
<hr />
<div>Death is the end of a living thing's life. What death is and what occurs after death is a matter of some debate, particularly where religion is involved, since due to the inherent nature of religion, it means nobody can agree on anything.<br />
<br />
The most reasonable assumption is that nothing happens after one dies and the body simply rots away (this would imply people do not have spirits or souls). However, since death is something people fear to varying degrees (and is a matter of taboo in some cultures), they require something comforting to help them deal with the idea they will die at some point. Generally this comfort is provided by religions, which deal with the issue in different ways. The concept of the afterlife is reassuring, dispite the inability to prove or disprove the claims - as, by definition, noone can return to confirm the myths.<br />
<br />
As the body of the deceased remains observably dead and eventually decomposes, afterlife belief requires the concept of a [[soul]] - a version of the deceased which contines to exist in some form after death. Although no soul has ever been detected, its existance is assumed due to the difficulty of accepting existance without an afterlife, and the resulting tendency to clutch at straw.<br />
<br />
==Religious Interpretations==<br />
<br />
[[Christians]] believe only their bodies die, not their souls. They believe they have everlasting life in either heaven or hell once their corporal life has ended. This belief brings up the obvious issue that there is a steady accumulation of souls and thus is entropically unfavourable. Therefore the belief in [[reincarnation]] is probably more plausible.<br />
<br />
''Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.<br />
<br />
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.<br />
<br />
I am that bread of life.''<br />
<br />
- John 5:46-48 King James Version<br />
<br />
Other religions, such as Paganism, believe in reincarnation - the body will die but the soul will be transferred into a new-born, and they will live again.</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shane_Warne&diff=78124Shane Warne2007-03-31T22:38:43Z<p>Republican: One of mine also, wonder if he misses his missus</p>
<hr />
<div>A famous Australian cricketer. Shane Warne is considered by many to be the greatest exponent of right arm leg break bowling.</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46982Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T02:15:41Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring source if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]{{unsigned|republican}}<br />
<br />
:...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am wondering about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&action=history here] Conservative and myself seem to be in a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative#CP:AID quandry]what do you think? As a reference if this was reverted by another sysopts should the BBC no longer be taken as a source? ">[[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
:Well, the notion that the oldest, largest, and most well-respected news corporation on earth shouldn't be used as a source is completely ridiculous in any respect. If you can't use BBC, then of course CNN, FOX, Al-Jazeera (no pun intended), MSNBC, ABC News, CSM, etc. wouldn't be authoritative at all. A news Corp. reports ''news''; that is, they report on the finding of other people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So should the theory of evolution page allow this article in reference to ther peoples views and findings? Because it was reverted. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
: Wikipedia apparently allows any and all citations to newspaper stories, but we shouldn't here. Journalistic opinions, for example, are not authorities. Journalists are also not authorities on scientific issues. Many journalists chose that field because they don't like math and science!<br />
<br />
: Newspapers have a puffery and sensationalistic component needed to boost (or maintain) sales. I wish I had a dollar for every newspaper story in the past 50 years claiming discovery of evidence of life in outer space. Of course they were all based on speculation, and all false. So in general I don't think we should be citing newspaper articles for scientific claims. Why can't we cite the scientific article directly?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok but the BBC is not a newspaper but a Network granted a mandate by the British government. It is paid for by every member of the United Kingdom that has a television, by means of a televsions license. In this respect it does not need to make sales, Indeed it is not allowed advertising on any medium. It has amongst other things five orchestras. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46979Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T02:15:03Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring source if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]{{unsigned|republican}}<br />
<br />
:...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am wondering about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&action=history here] Conservative and myself seem to be in a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative#CP:AID quandry]what do you think? As a reference if this was reverted by another sysopts should the BBC no longer be taken as a source? ">[[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
:Well, the notion that the oldest, largest, and most well-respected news corporation on earth shouldn't be used as a source is completely ridiculous in any respect. If you can't use BBC, then of course CNN, FOX, Al-Jazeera (no pun intended), MSNBC, ABC News, CSM, etc. wouldn't be authoritative at all. A news Corp. reports ''news''; that is, they report on the finding of other people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So should the theory of evolution page allow this article in reference to ther peoples views and findings? Because it was reverted. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
: Wikipedia apparently allows any and all citations to newspaper stories, but we shouldn't here. Journalistic opinions, for example, are not authorities. Journalists are also not authorities on scientific issues. Many journalists chose that field because they don't like math and science!<br />
<br />
: Newspapers have a puffery and sensationalistic component needed to boost (or maintain) sales. I wish I had a dollar for every newspaper story in the past 50 years claiming discovery of evidence of life in outer space. Of course they were all based on speculation, and all false. So in general I don't think we should be citing newspaper articles for scientific claims. Why can't we cite the scientific article directly?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok but the BBC is not a newspaper but a Network granted a mandate by the British government. It is paid for by every member of the United Kingdom that has a television, by means of a televsions license. In this respect it does not need to make sales, Indeed it is noy allowed advertising on any medium. It has amongst other things five orchestras. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46946Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T02:02:03Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring source if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]{{unsigned|republican}}<br />
<br />
:...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am wondering about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&action=history here] Conservative and myself seem to be in a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative#CP:AID quandry]what do you think? As a reference if this was reverted by another sysopts should the BBC no longer be taken as a source? ">[[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
:Well, the notion that the oldest, largest, and most well-respected news corporation on earth shouldn't be used as a source is completely ridiculous in any respect. If you can't use BBC, then of course CNN, FOX, Al-Jazeera (no pun intended), MSNBC, ABC News, CSM, etc. wouldn't be authoritative at all. A news Corp. reports ''news''; that is, they report on the finding of other people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So should the theory of evolution page allow this article in reference to ther peoples views and findings? Because it was reverted. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
: Wikipedia apparently allows any and all citations to newspaper stories, but we shouldn't here. Journalistic opinions, for example, are not authorities. Journalists are also not authorities on scientific issues. Many journalists chose that field because they don't like math and science!<br />
<br />
: Newspapers have a puffery and sensationalistic component needed to boost (or maintain) sales. I wish I had a dollar for every newspaper story in the past 50 years claiming discovery of evidence of life in outer space. Of course they were all based on speculation, and all false. So in general I don't think we should be citing newspaper articles for scientific claims. Why can't we cite the scientific article directly?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok but the BBC is not a newspaper but a Network granted a mandate by the British government. And has amongst other things five orchestras. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46899Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T01:44:37Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring source if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]{{unsigned|republican}}<br />
<br />
:...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am wondering about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&action=history here] Conservative and myself seem to be in a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative#CP:AID quandry]what do you think? As a reference if this was reverted by another sysopts should the BBC no longer be taken as a source? ">[[User:republican|'''republican''']]<br />
<br />
:Well, the notion that the oldest, largest, and most well-respected news corporation on earth shouldn't be used as a source is completely ridiculous in any respect. If you can't use BBC, then of course CNN, FOX, Al-Jazeera (no pun intended), MSNBC, ABC News, CSM, etc. wouldn't be authoritative at all. A news Corp. reports ''news''; that is, they report on the finding of other people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So should the theory of evolution page allow this article in reference to ther peoples views and findings? Because it was reverted. [[User:republican|'''republican''']]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46874Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T01:35:55Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring source if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]{{unsigned|republican}}<br />
<br />
:...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am wondering about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&action=history here] Conservative and myself seem to be in a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative#CP:AID quandry]what do you think? As a reference if this was reverted by another sysopts should the BBC no longer be taken as a source? ">[[User:republican|'''republican''']]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46857Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T01:27:38Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring sourve if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]<br />
<br />
Republican</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&diff=46854Talk:BBC News2007-03-19T01:25:53Z<p>Republican: New page: Should the BBC be allowed as a referring sourve if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672...</p>
<hr />
<div>Should the BBC be allowed as a referring sourve if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Israel&diff=46208Israel2007-03-18T20:53:07Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Israel is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It originally started when the [[Hebrews]] migrated from [[Egypt]] out of slavery. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Bibli]]cal events.<br />
<br />
Israel was a powerful nation in the Middle East from about 1000 to 900 B.C.<br />
<br />
It was conquered by the Romans in 200 B.C. In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation.<br />
<br />
The state of Israel was created in 1948 at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv as a country for many Jews affected and displaced by the second world war in addition to the existing population of Palestinian Jews[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm 1].<br />
The Zionist movement of the 1920's and 30's saw Zionists migrate to then British Mandate Palestine from 25000 in 1903 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 2] to 11% of Palestine's population by 1922 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 3]<br />
<br />
Israel is the location of intense territorial disputes between [[Israeli]]s and [[Palestinian Arabs]]. <br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/default.stm History of Conflict]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Israel&diff=46137Israel2007-03-18T20:31:02Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Israel is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It originally started when the [[Hebrews]] migrated from [[Egypt]] out of slavery. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Bibli]]cal events.<br />
<br />
Israel was a powerful nation in the Middle East from about 1000 to 900 B.C.<br />
<br />
It was conquered by the Romans in 200 B.C. In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation.<br />
<br />
The state of Israel was created in 1948 at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv as a country for many Jews affected and displaced by the second world war in addition to the existing population of Palestinian Jews[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm 1].<br />
The Zionist movement of the 1920's and 30's saw Zionists migrate to then British Mandate Palestine from 25000 in 1903 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 2] to 11% of Palestine's population by 1922 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 3]<br />
<br />
and is the location of intense territorial disputes between [[Israeli]]s and [[Palestinian Arabs]]. <br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/default.stm History of Conflict]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Israel&diff=46119Israel2007-03-18T20:26:12Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Israel is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It originally started when the [[Hebrews]] migrated from [[Egypt]] out of slavery. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Bibli]]cal events.<br />
<br />
Israel was a powerful nation in the Middle East from about 1000 to 900 B.C.<br />
<br />
It was conquered by the Romans in 200 B.C. In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation.<br />
<br />
The state of Israel was created in 1948 at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv as a country for many Jews affected and displaced by the second world war [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm 1].<br />
The Zionist movement of the 1920's and 30's saw Zionists migrate to then British Mandate Palestine from 25000 in 1903 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 2] to 11% of Palestine's population by 1922 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 3]<br />
<br />
and is the location of intense territorial disputes between [[Israeli]]s and [[Palestinian Arabs]]. <br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Bible]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Israel&diff=46108Israel2007-03-18T20:22:18Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Israel is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It originally started when the [[Hebrews]] migrated from [[Egypt]] out of slavery. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Bibli]]cal events.<br />
<br />
Israel was a powerful nation in the Middle East from about 1000 to 900 B.C.<br />
<br />
It was conquered by the Romans in 200 B.C. In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation.<br />
<br />
The state of Israel was created in 1948 at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv as a country for many Jews affected and displaced by the second world war [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm 1].<br />
The zionist movement of the 1920's and 30's saw zionists migrate to then British Mandate Palestine from 25000 in 1903 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 2] to 11% of Palestines population by 1922 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 3]<br />
<br />
and is the location of intense territorial disputes between [[Israeli]]s and [[Palestinian Arabs]]. <br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Bible]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Israel&diff=46106Israel2007-03-18T20:21:05Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Israel is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It originally started when the [[Hebrews]] migrated from [[Egypt]] out of slavery. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Bibli]]cal events.<br />
<br />
Israel was a powerful nation in the Middle East from about 1000 to 900 B.C.<br />
<br />
It was conquered by the Romans in 200 B.C. In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation.<br />
<br />
The state of Israel was created in 1948 at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv as a country for many Jews affected and displaced by the second world war [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm 1].<br />
The zionist movement of the 1920's and 30's saw zionists migrate to then British Mandate Palestine from 25000 in 1903[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 2] to 11% of Palestines population by 1922 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm 3]<br />
<br />
and is the location of intense territorial disputes between [[Israeli]]s and [[Palestinian Arabs]]. <br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Bible]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=41161Ireland2007-03-16T10:57:28Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ireland is an [[island]] off the northwestern coast of [[Europe]]. According to the last census the Republic of Ireland has a population of 4,062,235[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ei.html(1)] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The primary language is English, however, the official language of the Republic is ''Gaeilge'', or ''Irish''. In the Irish language the official name of Ireland (which appears on all coins, stamps, and government documents is ''Eire''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
Historically, Ireland's culture has been distinct from other regional cultures, as it was the one of the only [[Celtic]] territories never conquered by the [[Roman Empire]]. For several centuries after Roman rule, it was independent of outside governance, until it was conquered in the 17th century by [[Great Britain]]. The British retained control of the whole island until a war of independence broke out in 1919. The war with the British ended in 1921 with the British retaining control of six counties in the region of [[Ulster]]. The territory independent of the British became the [[Irish Free State]], while the territory controlled by the British became [[Northern Ireland]]. Later, in 1937, the Free State adopted a new constitution, changing its name to Ireland. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Politics ==<br />
In the Republic of Ireland the electoral system is [[Proportional Representation]] meaning that there are a large number of poltical parties.<br />
<br />
'''Fianna Fail''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they are a centre-right Conservative party. Traditionally the party of Big Business. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition.<br />
<br />
'''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Fwi-Na Gale, Irish for the 'United Ireland Party'). Ireland's second largest party.<br />
<br />
'''Labour Party''': A liberal left-wing party, similar to the Labour Party of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.<br />
<br />
'''Progressive Democrats''': The second party in the ruling coalition, it is very right wing on economic issues, favouring low-taxation, pro-business policies, but slightly more liberal on social issues. <br />
<br />
'''Green Party''': A left-wing party in favour of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security.<br />
<br />
'''Sinn Fein''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves Alone') Irelands oldest poltical party, it is closely connected with the IRA, a terrorist/guerrilla movement that sought a United Irish Republic. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a left-wing socialist party, although they are socially conservative.<br />
<br />
'''Socialist Party''': A left-wing Trotskyite party. They oppose capitalism and seek a United Socialist Ireland.<br />
<br />
The southern 26 counties officially became a Republic in 1949.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is generally referred to as the Republic of Ireland, although this is technically merely a description of the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ireland.gif]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=36612Talk:Wikipedia2007-03-15T00:14:55Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Sources==<br />
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.<br />
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml<br />
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..." <br />
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"? <br />
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007<br />
<br />
== "Controversy" ==<br />
<br />
This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.<br />
<br />
=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==<br />
C'mon. How many? Out of how many? <br />
<br />
Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.<br />
<br />
And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.<br />
<br />
::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.<br />
<br />
::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==<br />
I said that <br />
<br />
:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay." <br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias against homosexuality ==<br />
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please don't revert multiple times ==<br />
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Like conservipedia" ==<br />
<br />
"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."<br />
<br />
Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==<br />
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.<br />
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community<br />
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==OK, it is pretty funny==<br />
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Secret Revelations==<br />
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.<br />
<br />
:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.<br />
<br />
:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor. <br />
<br />
:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]<br />
<br />
== Dpbsmith ==<br />
<br />
This page is very interesting. <br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"<br />
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"<br />
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==<br />
<br />
I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight. <br />
<br />
They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.<br />
<br />
''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''<br />
<br />
-- from the bible<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B<br />
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=36605Talk:Wikipedia2007-03-15T00:13:31Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Sources==<br />
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.<br />
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml<br />
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..." <br />
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"? <br />
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007<br />
<br />
== "Controversy" ==<br />
<br />
This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.<br />
<br />
=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==<br />
C'mon. How many? Out of how many? <br />
<br />
Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.<br />
<br />
And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.<br />
<br />
::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.<br />
<br />
::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==<br />
I said that <br />
<br />
:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay." <br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias against homosexuality ==<br />
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please don't revert multiple times ==<br />
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Like conservipedia" ==<br />
<br />
"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."<br />
<br />
Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==<br />
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.<br />
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community<br />
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==OK, it is pretty funny==<br />
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Secret Revelations==<br />
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.<br />
<br />
:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.<br />
<br />
:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor. <br />
<br />
:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]<br />
<br />
== Dpbsmith ==<br />
<br />
This page is very interesting. <br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"<br />
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"<br />
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==<br />
<br />
I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight. <br />
<br />
They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.<br />
<br />
''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''<br />
<br />
-- from the bible<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B [[User_Talk:Republican|talk]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=36602Talk:Wikipedia2007-03-15T00:12:52Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Sources==<br />
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.<br />
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml<br />
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..." <br />
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"? <br />
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007<br />
<br />
== "Controversy" ==<br />
<br />
This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.<br />
<br />
=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==<br />
C'mon. How many? Out of how many? <br />
<br />
Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.<br />
<br />
And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.<br />
<br />
::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.<br />
<br />
::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==<br />
I said that <br />
<br />
:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay." <br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias against homosexuality ==<br />
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please don't revert multiple times ==<br />
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Like conservipedia" ==<br />
<br />
"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."<br />
<br />
Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==<br />
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.<br />
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community<br />
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==OK, it is pretty funny==<br />
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Secret Revelations==<br />
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.<br />
<br />
:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.<br />
<br />
:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor. <br />
<br />
:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]<br />
<br />
== Dpbsmith ==<br />
<br />
This page is very interesting. <br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"<br />
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"<br />
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==<br />
<br />
I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight. <br />
<br />
They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.<br />
<br />
''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''<br />
<br />
-- from the bible<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B ">[[User_Talk:Republican|talk]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=36598Talk:Wikipedia2007-03-15T00:11:38Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Sources==<br />
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.<br />
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml<br />
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..." <br />
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"? <br />
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007<br />
<br />
== "Controversy" ==<br />
<br />
This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.<br />
<br />
=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==<br />
C'mon. How many? Out of how many? <br />
<br />
Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.<br />
<br />
And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.<br />
<br />
::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.<br />
<br />
::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==<br />
I said that <br />
<br />
:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay." <br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bias against homosexuality ==<br />
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please don't revert multiple times ==<br />
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Like conservipedia" ==<br />
<br />
"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."<br />
<br />
Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==<br />
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.<br />
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.<br />
<br />
With regard to:<br />
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community<br />
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==OK, it is pretty funny==<br />
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Secret Revelations==<br />
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.<br />
<br />
:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.<br />
<br />
:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor. <br />
<br />
:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]<br />
<br />
== Dpbsmith ==<br />
<br />
This page is very interesting. <br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"<br />
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:<br />
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"<br />
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==<br />
<br />
I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight. <br />
<br />
They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.<br />
<br />
''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''<br />
<br />
-- from the bible<br />
<br />
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36550Wikipedia2007-03-14T23:56:02Z<p>Republican: Vandelism</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia and Bias==<br />
Conservapedia has an article that argues that Wikipedia has a [[liberal]] bias. [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|This list]] shows some examples of this alleged bias.<br />
<br />
<br />
The site also publishes images with many of these articles which are not suitable for young people and border on pornographic material. Wikipedia specifically claims to be an "open and liberal" site and recommends adult only subscribers to its content.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36484Wikipedia2007-03-14T23:38:29Z<p>Republican: Reverted edits by Republican (Talk); changed back to last version by RightWolf2</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia and Bias==<br />
Conservapedia has an article that argues that Wikipedia has a [[liberal]] bias. [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|This list]] shows some examples of this alleged bias.<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia and Homosexuality==<br />
<br />
Of the approximately 3 million people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts<ref>About 3 million; see [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia's Statistics page]</ref> 226 (as of 14th March 2007<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality Wikipedians by Sexuality]</ref>) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual. It must be noted however, that not ever member has given an answer so the actual figure may be much higher. The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]. The materials collected by Wikipedia Watch from Wikipedia chat rooms and other sources contain a large body of supporting documentation about Wikipedia. Wikipedia Watch is a conservative website that catalogs the actual identities of Wikipedia editors and leaders.<br />
<br />
Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.<br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
<br />
The site also publishes images with many of these articles which are not suitable for young people and border on pornographic material. Wikipedia specifically claims to be an "open and liberal" site and recommends adult only subscribers to its content.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36449Wikipedia2007-03-14T23:28:54Z<p>Republican: Reverted edits by RightWolf2 (Talk); changed back to last version by Republican</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia and Bias==<br />
Conservapedia has an article that argues that Wikipedia has a [[liberal]] bias. [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|This list]] shows some examples of this alleged bias.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36429Wikipedia2007-03-14T23:23:43Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia and Bias==<br />
Conservapedia has an article that argues that Wikipedia has a [[liberal]] bias. [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|This list]] shows some examples of this alleged bias.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Epistemophobia&diff=36249Epistemophobia2007-03-14T22:41:01Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Epistemophobia''' is the abnormal or irrational fear of [[knowledge]]. <br />
<br />
Also know as [[Gnosiophobia]].</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gnosiophobia&diff=36239Gnosiophobia2007-03-14T22:40:01Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Gnosiophobia''' is the abnormal or irrational fear of [[knowledge]]. <br />
<br />
Also know as [[Epistemophobia]].</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Weapons_of_mass_destruction&diff=36143Weapons of mass destruction2007-03-14T22:18:44Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Weapons of Mass Destruction are weapons designed to kill a large number of people.<br />
<br />
One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges).<br />
<br />
Overall it is important to remember that Weapons of Mass Destruction if held by appropriate forces such as [[NATO]] can be beneficial to the balance of world order. Whereas with a rogue dictator such as the late [[Saddam Hussein] it would be inappropriate to create and stockpile nuclear weapons, a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able retain the control of Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully.</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Weapons_of_mass_destruction&diff=36116Weapons of mass destruction2007-03-14T22:15:12Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>Weapons of Mass Destruction are weapons designed to kill a large number of people.<br />
<br />
One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges).<br />
<br />
Overall it is important to remember that Weapons of Mass Destruction can be good in the right hands. Whereas with a rogue dictator such as the late [[Saddam Hussein] it would be inappropriate to create and stockpile nuclear weapons, a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able retain the control of Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully.</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Iraqi_Freedom&diff=35373Operation Iraqi Freedom2007-03-14T19:09:31Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world, started when a Coalition of the Willing drawn from [[NATO]] members including the United Kingdom<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], locating [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] including "knowhow" to produce WMD and liberating the Iraqi people. Currently the outcome of the war is unknown, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The Bush administration champions the war as part of the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]], although the topic is up for debate. The Administration has been widely criticized for numerous strategic blunders in the execution of the war, including the failure to have a post-invasion plan.<br />
<br />
===Iraqi Liberation===<br />
<br />
The Iraqis welcomed American troops as liberators. Iraqi resistance to the occupation began almost immediately after the invasion in March 2003, and has been consistently overplayed since then. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-Zogby poll in September 2003 found that "Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991]. Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled form Baghddad. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm] A poll by the IRI in the autumn of 2006 found that 96% of Iraqis condemned the bombing of the mosque in Samarra and 78% of respondents answered that violence is never acceptable.[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt]<br />
<br />
===Iraqi Casualties===<br />
<br />
Reporting of civilian casualties in the the Iraq war has been subject to a number of distortions involving projected, unconfirmed deaths.[http://www.iraqbodycount.org/]. Less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died.<br />
<br />
===Weapons of Mass Destruction===<br />
<br />
The Iraqi weapons of mass destruction still have not been found. Some believe WMD were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. Antiwar liberals insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the [[First Gulf War]], and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more, in spite of evidence to the contrary.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=35294Tony Blair2007-03-14T18:44:06Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tony Blair''', full name '''Anthony Charles Lynton Blair''' (born May 6, 1953) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He belongs to and is the current leader of the Labour Party, a self-described democratic [[socialist]] party<ref>[http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=labourdemocracy]</ref>. He became leader in 1994, following the death of his predecessor, John Smith. He was a major figure in the modernisation of the party and the [[Labour party|New Labour]] movement, and led the party to a landslide victory in the 1997 general [[election]], ending 18 years of [[Conservative]] government.<br />
<br />
Tony Blair has stated he would step down as the party leader in time for the Trades Union Congress conference in September 2007 <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5322094.stm]</ref>.<br />
<br />
During Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, the [[Labour party|Labour]] government has introduced a national [[minimum wage]], in 1998, which has gradually been increased over time. Scotland has also gained a devolved Parliament, and attempts have been made to devolve power to the regions (although these have met with limited success). <br />
<br />
One of the most controversial aspects of Blair's premiership has been his commitment to and support of the Iraq war, which has strongly divided opinion, both in the House and among the British people.<br />
<br />
== Personal ==<br />
[http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp] The son of a barrister and lecturer, Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. He studied law at [[Oxford University]], and went on to become a barrister himself. before entering politics. Blair married his wife, Cherie Booth QC a barrister in 1980, and they have four children.<br />
<br />
As well as being leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, Tony Blair is also the [[MP]] for Sedgefield, a constituency located in [[County Durham]] in North East England.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{stub}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=35273Conservative2007-03-14T18:30:42Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<br />
<br />
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:<br />
<br />
* National defense and high military spending<br />
* Return of prayer in school<br />
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)<br />
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)<br />
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty<br />
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools<br />
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers<br />
* Private medical care and retirement plans<br />
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy<br />
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs<br />
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion<br />
<br />
Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:<br />
<br />
<br>[[George Washington]]<br />
<br>[[James Monroe]]<br />
<br>[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br />
<br>[[Grover Cleveland]]<br />
<br>[[Warren G. Harding]]<br />
<br>[[Ronald Reagan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom the present parlimentary opposition party is called the Conservative party [http://www.conservatives.com]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. It's current leader is David Cameron<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=35251Conservative2007-03-14T18:24:30Z<p>Republican: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<br />
<br />
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:<br />
<br />
* National defense and high military spending<br />
* Return of prayer in school<br />
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)<br />
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)<br />
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty<br />
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools<br />
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers<br />
* Private medical care and retirement plans<br />
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy<br />
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs<br />
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion<br />
<br />
Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:<br />
<br />
<br>[[George Washington]]<br />
<br>[[James Monroe]]<br />
<br>[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br />
<br>[[Grover Cleveland]]<br />
<br>[[Warren G. Harding]]<br />
<br>[[Ronald Reagan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom the present parlimentary opposition party is called the Conservative party [http://www.conservatives.com]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=35244Conservative2007-03-14T18:23:57Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<br />
<br />
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:<br />
<br />
* National defense and high military spending<br />
* Return of prayer in school<br />
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)<br />
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)<br />
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty<br />
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools<br />
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers<br />
* Private medical care and retirement plans<br />
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy<br />
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs<br />
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion<br />
<br />
Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:<br />
<br />
<br>[[George Washington]]<br />
<br>[[James Monroe]]<br />
<br>[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br />
<br>[[Grover Cleveland]]<br />
<br>[[Warren G. Harding]]<br />
<br>[[Ronald Reagan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom the present parlimentary opposition party is called the Conservative party [http://www.conservatives.com]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
[[2] Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=35238Conservative2007-03-14T18:22:25Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<br />
<br />
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:<br />
<br />
* National defense and high military spending<br />
* Return of prayer in school<br />
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)<br />
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)<br />
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty<br />
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools<br />
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers<br />
* Private medical care and retirement plans<br />
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy<br />
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs<br />
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion<br />
<br />
Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:<br />
<br />
<br>[[George Washington]]<br />
<br>[[James Monroe]]<br />
<br>[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br />
<br>[[Grover Cleveland]]<br />
<br>[[Warren G. Harding]]<br />
<br>[[Ronald Reagan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom the present parlimentary opposition party is called the Conservative party[[2]]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
[[2] Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=35226Conservative2007-03-14T18:19:16Z<p>Republican: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<br />
<br />
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:<br />
<br />
* National defense and high military spending<br />
* Return of prayer in school<br />
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)<br />
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)<br />
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty<br />
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools<br />
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers<br />
* Private medical care and retirement plans<br />
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy<br />
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs<br />
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion<br />
<br />
Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:<br />
<br />
<br>[[George Washington]]<br />
<br>[[James Monroe]]<br />
<br>[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br />
<br>[[Grover Cleveland]]<br />
<br>[[Warren G. Harding]]<br />
<br>[[Ronald Reagan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
2 Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=35222Conservative2007-03-14T18:18:28Z<p>Republican: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<br />
<br />
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:<br />
<br />
* National defense and high military spending<br />
* Return of prayer in school<br />
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)<br />
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)<br />
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty<br />
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools<br />
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers<br />
* Private medical care and retirement plans<br />
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy<br />
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs<br />
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion<br />
<br />
Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:<br />
<br />
<br>[[George Washington]]<br />
<br>[[James Monroe]]<br />
<br>[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br />
<br>[[Grover Cleveland]]<br />
<br>[[Warren G. Harding]]<br />
<br>[[Ronald Reagan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
2 Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com//></div>Republicanhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=English_language&diff=29734English language2007-03-12T22:47:43Z<p>Republican: </p>
<hr />
<div>English is the language of the United States, Great Britain, and other former members of the British Empire. It is becoming the first international language. Indeed as an example if the French wish to talk to the Dutch they may choose to speak English to one another.<br />
<br />
The term english may also be used to refer to a person from the United Kingdom born in the country of England.</div>Republican