Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-15T14:04:56Z

Shocktherapy: "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did."

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-15T13:59:30Z

Shocktherapy: /* Outdated info */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-15T13:56:07Z

Shocktherapy: /* "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page/archive22

2007-09-25T17:02:39Z

Shocktherapy: /* This has ''got'' to be the most ridiculous thing in the world... */

== Deceit ==

There's an error on the section about Wikipedia and deceit. It links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29, when it should link to the general article on "Deceit", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit . This redirects to the article "Lie" rather than the post punk band as is claimed. As it is now, the blurb is, well deceitful. The irony is overwhelming.

: The irony in your mistaken claim of "error" is indeed overwhelming. There is no error in Conservapedia's description, which is completely correct. I'd point you to Wikipedia so you can learn what deceit is, but as noted it does not have a correct entry for it. Try a dictionary, or try our entry on [[deceit]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Right now, searching for deceit [on Wikipedia] links to the article on Conservapedia. [<- that was an example of liberal vandalism on Wikipedia, which is rampant there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:55, 11 September 2007 (EDT)] Godspeed.

== Can anyone who's not American use this site? ==

It just seems that as a liberally-inclined guy from Scotland, I have no relevance to this site and so contributing to it would be futile. I am an editor of Wikipedia, however.--[[User:Frog|Frog]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. [[Liberal]]s and non-Americans are encouraged to use this site. You might be able to improve the article on [[Scotland]], etc. What are your interests? Do a search and find an article you can improve. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:*'''However''', please remember that contrary to Wikipedia, we do not embrace total neutrality, and we are a Christian-friendly, Conservative politically friendly encyclopedia. A good example is our article on Jesus Christ. We present his being the Son of God as a fact, not a theory, we do not say it is "believed" he is the Son of God, we state it. So, if you are of the mind that through debate and argument you will convince anyone here that we are "wrong", please know that will not happen. If you can utilize your talents to add, as Crocoite said above, to our articles without trying to repudiate them, that would be a big help! And of course in any encyclopedia there are thousands of present articles, and tens of thousands more that need to be created, that do not touch upon faith and moral issues! If you need help or assistance, just post on my talk page, or use the email link. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:27, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Someone erased my last post, but I will again say that I think the above answer is very honest, appropriate and informataive. thanks, [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:36, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Is this site serious? ==

I am completely new here (I only registered about 3 minutes ago) and so am not fully sure what this site is about. As the title says, is this site serious or is it just a parody site? This is not intended to be offensive or a sarcastic comment, I simply cannot actually tell. --[[User:Hydraton31|Hydraton31]] 17:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, why wouldn't this site be serious? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

"Hydraton31", people asked the same of [[Jesus]], [[Isaac Newton]], [[Ronald Reagan]], and others like them: "are you serious"??? It takes an open mind to learn and grow. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

It is not that I am unwilling to accept new ideas, but I found some of the views so extreme as to seem rather hyperbolic. However, this was simply my opinion. I might have time to read more and see. --[[User:Hydraton31|Hydraton31]] 17:17, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:Just curious, what views did you find "so extreme"? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:25, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm curious also. Within the 3 minutes you mentioned above, how much could you have read and reflected on it??? Wouldn't that be a sign of close-mindedness to draw conclusions ''before'' reading and thinking about something? That's OK, as long as you're open-minded now. Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

::Another liberal making a thinly veiled contemptuous question rather than making a statement they would actually have to support. Look how easy it is do what the liberal just did: Is your choice of posing a question rather than making a statement you would have to actually support some kind of liberal parody? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:28, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:::These accusations are fairly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. You should show some proof ''before'' making your argument.([[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 09:52, 2 September 2007 (EDT))

:::: Alright, let me try this. I am also a liberal. Yes, I feel certain that I will end up banned for that. I also found some of the view very extreme, even for a conservative wiki. For example: The simply pathetic page on [[Sexual Intercourse]], much of the article on [[Communism]] (shouldn't that article mainly be about Communism as an idea, with a section on it in practice?). I also found the fact that many of the articles are locked to be presumptuous at the least, as if you were saying that they were perfect as they are. Please understand, I'm not here to simply bash you all. I'm not writing this to prove the validity of my viewpoint over yours. I'm just giving my opinions on your site. --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 13:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

The locking is often to prevent edit wars (and if you read the associated talk pages you'd appreciate that pretty soon people would spend their entire time undoing other people's edits). I agree with you, though, on the ludicrous refusal to countenance any discussion of communist theory. Simple grunts of "Dirty Commies" suffice. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:23, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you. This entire wiki would gain a lot more credibility if you simply re-write these and other articles to be less obviously biased. You don't have to remove the bias completely, as this is a conservative wiki, but don't simply write "Dirty Commies".--[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 13:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::Good point; we'll make it "Dirty commie killers", as you suggest. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree. Might as well not sugar-coat it and pretend, as the Liberals do, that they didn't commit a bigger genocide than Hitler! And here I am only speaking of the Soviet communists, not even bringing into it the Chinese! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:*The difference is this, while nazis practiced anti-semitism and racial discrimintory genocide, communists have always been equal opportunity killers. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:35, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

==Christian Lawsuit==

Reading through that article, they say that "Corder had not included those remarks during rehearsals." Intentionally withholding something she knew would get cut and just doing it during the ceremony.... Sounds like Deceit to me.... Or is only Liberal deceit counted? [[User:Blackguy|Blackguy]] 14:46, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*What is sounds like to me is the talk of someone who has given darn few speeches, nor has any idea of how often speakers veer from their prepared text. Sounds even more like a [[deceit]]ful Liberal, with a pre-planned agenda, guffawing over how clever he thought his post was. Blackguy, please stop trolling and start contributing. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:23, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

No TK, this is a case of conservative deceit. --[[User:Fain|Fain]] 17:30, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I do know this is typical Liberal [[deceit]]:

:* Fain (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 21:31, 3 September 2007) (Earliest: 21:29, 3 September 2007) [3]
:* Suder (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 00:06, 2 September 2007) (Earliest: 00:06, 2 September 2007) [1]
:* Mojojojo (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 03:47, 30 August 2007) (Earliest: 03:47, 30 August 2007) [1]

...someone signing up with multiple sock accounts to troll and vandalize. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:10, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== I don't think it works ==

It would seem that this site only works because of its aggressive policy of protecting so many pages, banning users who make good faith edits that aren't liked and even removing comments that arn't liked, surly that goes against what a Wiki is, and you would be better off with some other sort of website? [[User:PinkFloyd|PinkFloyd]] 15:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Well gee, maybe you are from someplace where political correctness has run amok, and Internet sites and even people are not allowed by some "Mobocracy" to have a POV? Maybe you are so conditioned to revisionist thinking, some globalist outlook, that you think anyone who disagrees with your political left-of-center agenda shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose what our articles should say? You do understand, don't you, that NPOV is having a POV? That is because it is people deciding what is and is not expressing one. And if you had done your homework, and investigated the Wikimedia Software, you would see there are literally hundreds of configurations built into it, from requiring users to register to edit, to not allowing anyone to edit except Administrators. So your good idea of what a wiki is, is just that; your own good idea, not the developers and inventors of it. Oh, one more thing: Please try and clear your mind, and report back here the exact percentage of "protected" articles, okay? Out of the total number here, it is a very, very small percentage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

So just because I think this site shouldn't be so protected makes me center left does it? [[User:PinkFloyd|PinkFloyd]] 15:40, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:It's really just a time saving device; rather than follow trolls with a pooper scooper, we can save ourselves time and afford trolls the opportunity to think through their edits a little bit. Besides, this saves a good faith editor from getting blocked before he justs parrots the party line, using DNC/MSNBC/CNN/AP talking points. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Are you saying I was wrong in saying so? If so, I stand corrected! And Rob, you forgot to include moveon.org and the dailykos.com in that list....;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:51, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't like the whole left right badge, I like to have my own opinion, most don't sit well with either left or right arguments,you could call me a compromieist. [[User:PinkFloyd|PinkFloyd]] 16:02, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Wow. Now that's a shock. Not! So, in your world, there isn't any black or white, eh? Everything is a shade of gray? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::Interesting, "compromietist," "half a loaf is better than none". The word "Lord" comes from "loaf ward," of "keeper of the loaves." So even in requesting half a loaf, would User:Pink Floyd agree that half loaf comes from the Lord? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:46, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*I don't think he would take any loafs, not even half, unless made in Union shop. Well, I could be wrong. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:49, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

**Er, surely that should be loaves? [[User:Kenservative|Kenservative]] 14:27, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hurricane Felix ==

Again we have a hurricane coming. This one is a giant. I may be away for some time. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

: Our prayers are with you, Joaquin. The month of September is always rough for Hurricanes. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:: I've always struggled with this question: "Is God powerful enough to alter the path of an impending hurricane to save someone's life?". Your thoughts? --[[User:JoeBloggs|JoeBloggs]] 10:50, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Certainly, if it is His will. How often do we read in the news of people miraculously survive direct hits by hurricanes, or the hurricane shifted from its predicted path? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 07:48, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, I think I understand what you're saying. I am a bit confused though as to when he actually decides to use "His will", because often the damage from "natural" disasters seems quite random. For example, the tsunami from 2004 that devastated countries in the Indian Ocean. Thousands of people died, but thousands of people were also spared by His will, many of them even were non-Christians. --[[User:JoeBloggs|JoeBloggs]] 09:11, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== This is How Liberals Think ==

How liberals think is that some of those within our tent are not always right nor do we necessarily agree with them. So, it is incorrect to quote some obsucre professor of IR on some proposed welfare program and headline it with "how liberals think".

May I write a brief article about Larry Craig, Tom Foley and Ted Haggard, and headline it, "How Conservatives feel about morality"? Of course not, because not all conservatives act like these men.

Perhaps a weakness of this site, is not so much that it espouses conservative Christian views, (after all that is what you say your ''raison d'etre'' is) but it's constant attacks on liberals. More to the point, anything that is not liked my many of the contributors is assumed to liberalism.

In my business career I have often had to choose products or services among various competitors. The salesperson who focused on the virtue of his product rather than how terrible his competitors were, always received a more favorable hearing.

--[[User:TraJSmith|TraJSmith]] 20:08, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

==[[Mike Nifong]]==

Here's some biographical info on Mike Nifong; [http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/49ec0b61-6cf7-41f2-97b7-ff7515cf89f1?comments=true][http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-scandal-revenge.html] Can we get a volunteer to get it started for the Main Page? Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:49, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

== Christian Conservative Stance on the Issue of Petrodollar Warfare ==

Hi guys,

I'm new to the site. I've browsed through some of the pages, but really haven't contributed until recently. I recently created a page about [[Petrodollar warfare]], which is a very complex issue, but one that I think underlies many important political issues of our day. I'd love it if people could help contribute to the page (for those with an interest in politics or the economy), and discuss the concept, which doesn't get much coverage in the mainstream media. Please feel free to drop me a line, or discuss the issue. I really want to see how the Christian Conservative community feels in regards to this very important topic.--[[User:McGovern|McGovern]] 18:33, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

:This is a liberal article and I have deleted it. Here's a few excerpts:
:"The phrase comes from Clark's novel "Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar," in which Clark argues the war in Iraq was waged, not as a front against terrorism or as a last-ditch effort to find and destroy the regime's weapons of mass destruction, but to maintain dollar hegemony in the world marketplace."
:"According to Clark, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war with the intention of installing a pro-American government in Iraq, establishing multiple American military bases in the Middle-East before the onset of peak oil production, and most importantly, returning the petrocurrency of Iraq to dollars, with the hope of deterring OPEC from switching their petrocurrency to the euro as an 'alternative oil transaction currency'."
:McGovern is a sock account of Peppersauce:
:McGovern (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 22:35, September 5, 2007) (Earliest: 01:38, September 5, 2007) [37]
:Peppersauce (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 05:09, September 3, 2007) (Earliest: 05:09, September 3, 2007) [1]

:21:44, September 2, 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Peppersauce (contribs)" with an expiry time of 5 years (Troller)
:McGovern has been perma banned as a sockpuppet as well. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:49, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::Good call. "Petrodollar warfare" can't even be called liberal. It's simply a wacky conspiracy theory with no grounding in mainstream economic theory. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 23:03, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

==Regarding the Conservapedia logo==

I was wondering if this could be changed to a more international logo. The current logo makes this wiki look American based. Although I don't really have any suggestions yet.

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 20:03, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi everyone.

I don't know much about this website, can someone help me out? I'm 14 years old and I live in Canada. I am a devoted Christian/Catholic, and my parents' friends told me about this website. Is this website just for posting information, or can you talk with people? I really would like to talk to others with Christian values, because most of the kids at my school don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and many don't even believe in God, and I go to a Catholic school!
I'm really losing faith that there are people out there who believe in and love God as much as I do. Nice to meet you!
--[[User:Jadr|Jadr]] 20:49, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

RichardT,
As far as I can tell, Conservapedia seems to be centralized around American conservatism, which explains the American flag in the background. Earlier in its existence it was very hung up on maintaining an American image, and actively quelled activity it felt was "Un-American". While this is certainly their right, it does elmiminate most possibilities of making Conservapedia more international. [[[[User:Adam|Adam]] 23:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]

* Conservapedia welcomes users from all countries, but bear in mind that articles are expected to adhere to an American, Christian and conservative worldview. One of the reasons behind the Conservapedia project is that Wikipedia promotes a very global and neutral point of view, which doesn't accurately represent the majority of Americans. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:04, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Not all Americans are conservative, and not all conservatives are Americans. Being Canadian myself I find that a more international logo would allow more people from other countries to be interested in helping out with this site's main goals. Being international doesn't make Conservapedia a "neutral" point of view. It will still be a Conservative PoV. -- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 15:53, 6 September 2007(EDT)

*I agree. You are free to submit something you feel is more suitable, for consideration! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the logo is offputting. There are plenty of classic conservatives in other countries. Think Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Ariel Sharon. There are also plenty of Jewish conservatives. Think Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon. There are even plenty of Atheist conservatives. Are they not welcome here? [[User:DavidSGraff|DavidSGraff]] 00:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that having a American logo has its pros and cons but I favor a more international logo. I think a benefit of the current American logo is that perhaps (and I am not sure) American conservative are more socially conservative whereas many self identified European conservatives may be merely fiscal conservatives. I don't pretend to know much about Australia other to say that I have met Aussie conservative who were very socially conservative. Regardless, I would hate for Conservapedia to go more socially conservative in its content. On the other hand, having a international logo would attract more conservatives which would boost our internet traffic which in turn would boost our internet search engine rankings. This would make Conservapedia a potentially better site as more contributors means more content (although I realize that more content does not necessarily mean a better encyclopedia as it is quality content that truly matters). Also, the higher our internet search engine rankings the more influential Conservapedia will be. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:06, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

What do you guys think of a picture of Ronald Reagan(or any other popular conservative) as the logo?

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 22:21, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Ronald Reagan]] is a hero to many, but the [[conservative]] movement is far bigger than any one individual. Would you expect a site devoted to [[math]] to use the image of a great [[mathematician]] as its logo? I think not. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

What kind of logo can all conservatives everywhere agree on? What is it that brings us all together?

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 23:30, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There's always room for improvement, and we all welcome suggestions. The American flag does convey a symbol of [[conservatism]] for many, including non-Americans. But if there's a better idea, let's consider it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a suggestion that may not seem obvious at first: a labarum, the ''chi-rho'' symbol that Constantine had painted on the shields of his legions before the [[Battle of Milvian Bridge]]. It would reflect the Christian point of view on the site and the traditional respect we conservatives have for traditional Western civilization. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 23:17, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== This has ''got'' to be the most ridiculous thing in the world... ==

The entry that says "''Wikipedia thinks deceit is a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."[2] Wikipedia does not have an entry on deceit that explains it correctly, and Wikipedia fails to give meaningful examples as Conservapedia does here.''" is ridiculous. Of course they don't have an entry on deceit; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Wikipedia is not a dictionary]. This encyclopedia sucks. And what do you guys have against liberalism? I'm a Catholic (therefore, a Conservative), and I am an active and happy editor there. You guys need to get lives... --[[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 22:46, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Not all self proclaimed Catholics are [[conservative]]s. [[John Kerry]] states he is a Catholic. Secondly, read the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] regarding the 90/10 rule which you are violating. Next, I suggest reading the Conservapedia article on [[Wikipedia]] which demonstrates that Wikipedia is liberal. Lastly, if you really were a conservative you would know why we believe liberalism is errant. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal is just a word, a vague outlining of related thoughts and beliefs, just like "conservative". More on the topic, I disagree with this article, as it is hardly "breaking news", and is also false. A Wikipedia search of "deceit" immediately redirects me to "Lie", which to me seems an accurate and descriptive article on the term. Personally, I think Conservapedia should worry less about actively trying to discredit its opponents (namely Wikipedia) and focus on less petty and trivial matters. Getting hung up on semantics and constant slander of opponents never helps.

:Sorry, I'll sign my comments from now on! [[[[User:Adam|Adam]] 23:15, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]

As to you're "liberal is just a word" thing - what? Yes - liberal is an adjective - glad we have that agreed upon. As to you're second argument- I agree with you there, I mean if they have something on lie that should be sufficient. As to you're third point - I disagree. I think that discrediting the opposition is the only way to get people to join CP. Most people don't know that what they're reading on Wikipedia is biased - so we have to prove to them that it is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:31, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:One of the reasons Conservapedia was founded was to eliminate the perceived Liberal bias inherent in Wikipedia and large information sources like CNN or MSNBC. However, by constantly trying to discredit Wikipedia and only ever pushing a "Conservative" take on facts or events, one bias has been substituted for another. In my personal opinion, the constant attacks on Wikipedia cheapen and degrade the quality of Conservapedia. A true, factual encyclopedia shouldn't have to resort to attacks on its competition. The Webster's dictionary doesn't contain entries slandering Random House or claiming it to be inferior. If Conservapedia wants to attract an actual academic audience, and not just jaded Conservative activists or Liberal trolls, it needs to take an academic stance, which is to say, no more Wikipedia digs. [[[[User:Adam|Adam]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]
:By the way, my "liberal is just a word" line was to show that some people express an exaggerated importance on the word Liberal, and seem to forget what it actually means. Many people equate "Liberals" with some great enemy to be defeated, but what I am trying to say is that Liberals and Conservatives are just two opposing political viewpoints, nothing more. [[[[User:Adam|Adam]] 23:45, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]
:: From that position, you could say that patriotism and terrorism are "just two opposing political viewpoints".--[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
:::And, in a sense, they are. What if America were overtaken by a terribly oppressive totalitarian government? Most Americans today would not stand for such a thing, and would openly revolt against such a change. To the established totalitarian regime, they are terrorists that threaten national stability, but to the people, they are freedom-fighters trying to restore the glory of a nation. So, if patriotism becomes violent, the way terrorism is, then are the two really distinguishable? [[User:Adam|Adam]] 10:50, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Are you suggesting that, during the [[American Revolution]], soldiers of the [[Continental Army]], or any irregulars supporting the same, murdered innocent women or children? Or--are you saying that you consider America to have ''already been taken over'' by "an oppressive totalitarian government"? Your position makes zero sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Yay for restating his argument as a bizarre absolute! Long live the spirit of American debate! Someone's got a case of ripperitis.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

*Adam, terrorism to overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian regime, for the sake of establishing or re-establishing freedom/Democracy, is one thing. Terrorism, conducted in and for the installation of yet another oppressive, totalitarian, ''religious theocracy'', is just terrorism, criminal activity. You cannot attach the appellation "freedom fighter(s)" to religious fanatics who seek neither freedom or religious pluralism. That is a [[logical fallacy]], the same as calling people "suicide bombers" when in point of fact they are [[Homicide Bombers]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

To revert back to the original point of this section, I typed in deceit at wikipedia and it redirected my to a page for the word "lie", not to an album. If you type in www.wikipedia.org/deceit (you will be redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit) you are also taken to the page for the word "lie." So I don't know if it is entirely accurate to say that the wikipedia page for deceit just talks about an album. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 15:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Sher Zieve ==

[[Sher Zieve]], an important conservative journalist, does not have any article in Wikipedia.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:23, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP article about [[Sher Zieve]] had more that 120 visits in less that 24 hours!

::: Very nice, Joaquin!!!! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: CP's "Sher Zieve" is currently in Google, number 30 among 108,000 articles. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:35, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: In 6 days of living this page has been accessed 1,177 times. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:32, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

==Ehh...==

Being a conservative sort of guy from Ireland, I'm not sure that this website is balanced towards non US conservatives?

Also, what is with all this sabre rattling on the front page? Shouldn't we concentrate on promoting our message rather than slandering the other side? All this association of deceit with Liberal makes this place look like a parody of itself.

Anyway, nice to be here, but could someone help me out, where I have to go before I'm allowed edit articles etc. [[User:Smith090|Smith090]] 19:11, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:I object to your use of the word ''slander''. Truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel or slander.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Lets not take what I said literally; Its a figure of speech.

What I meant was (And I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant) that promoting our own crop might actually achieve more than saying the neighbours crop isn't very good. [[User:Smith090|Smith090]] 19:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*What he meant was, Terry, is that he is yet another [[deceit]]ful Liberal. The user is a sock of another, merely here to disrupt and show their ignorance. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

==Video==

I've noticed that a comment about the [[Huckabee]]/ [[Paul]] debate is on the front page. Here is a link to the [http://ianschwartz.com/2007/09/05/video-mike-huckabee-and-ron-paul-face-off-on-broken-iraq video and transcript of the clash], just in case you want to know what [[National Review]] was writing about. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:15, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed that the transcript on the link i posted, is very primitive and may be misleading. Although its minor, you may want to change the front page from "video and transcript" to just say "video". Thanks,--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Will do. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
re
Thanks Aschlafy. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:03, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
== Question regarding Conservapedia article search engine rankings ==

I noticed today that Conservapedia has a Google ranking of #5 for a very popular internet search. I also found one Conservapedia article that is ranked #1 by Google. Does anyone know of any Conservapedia articles that are ranked in the top 5 by Google? I ask this question because I read that 70% of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engines and 50% of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google.[http://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2007/02/wikipedia_traffic_sources.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: Our ranking for "equiproportional marginal benefit" is #1 on [[Google]]. However, [[Wikipedia]] is far more dependent on the search engines than we are. We have a higher percentage of users who come to our site first for information than [[Wikipedia]] does. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: Our [[liberal style]] is #7 on [[Google]] rankings. Our [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels]], searchable as "greatest conservative novels", is #1.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: Another #1 entry, out of over 1.6 million entries: search on Google the words "Harvard" "abortion" "study" and you find [[Harvard abortion study]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:43, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

== [[APEC]] Greenhouse Gas agreement ==

This may be good news or bad news depending on your point of view on global warming, but an interesting development nevertheless. Worthy of the front page?

[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22382990-2,00.html APEC agrees to cut emissions]{{unsigned|Ferret}}

: Not sure if it is worth to be cover on the front page. Apparently the Sydney Declaration includes aspirational goals to cut emissions, as well as binding regional targets. Scientist Richard Lindzen called such targets "the most immoral thing you could do", because it would keep billions from access to electricity. Also it implicitly suggests that global warming does actually exists, or at least that humans are contributing to it, while conclusions of global-warming alarmists are said to become more and more ridiculous. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::So, from one perspective at least, today we have several major countries signing up for the "most immoral thing you could do". If that isn't worthy of the front page, what is? My point is, whether we think it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a pretty major development. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 22:45, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==

Sir or Madam,
Wikipedia does appear to have a very comprehensive page on "liberal." Although it redirects to "Liberalism," it has an extensive article series on types of liberalism, and even an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States US Liberalism]. We may disagree with its POV but it does exist, eh?-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 11:06, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Precisely. And surely it doesn't require too much mental effort to infer that a liberal is one who supports liberalism in one or other of its forms. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So I'd support taking down the latest News thing. I don't want this site to look dumb, as I fear that story would cause :-P.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 11:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke? especially when in Conservapedia searching for liberalism reroutes one to the article liberal, and that article... Lets not even go there. Mayby it takes an conservative not to see the connection between liberalism and an liberal. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 13:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:"Liberal" has nearly '''seven times''' as many sites in a Google search as "liberalism" does. "Liberalism" is rarely heard in common discourse.

:[[Wikipedia]] isn't fooling [[conservatives]] by its redirect ... and neither are you. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Wait - but it's not like Wikipedia is hiding the article on liberal - I mean all the information about liberals is in liberalism. I don't think Wikipedia is trying to fool anyone by its redirects.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:01, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
::Fooling conservatives? so you are really saying that conservatives reading Wikipedia don't have the intellectual capacity to see the connection between liberalism and an liberal. Well, can't even imagine in what trouble they are in here, when they search for liberalism and get all confused when they end up to the liberal article, good thing tho that your google research shows that undoubtly happens less often. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 13:57, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, 
You appear to have assumed that I was speaking in bad faith. Incorrect. I was trying to help you. Please assume good faith in the future. Although I still think your "error" in Wikipedia is a distinction without a difference, you are entitled to keep it there, I suppose (free country). Please do not conflate my constructive criticism with the above user, by the way. Cheers.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 14:11, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::The user above would like to point out that, even tho the user now above me claims so, im not speaking in bad faith, just saying things bit more direct, no politcal correctnes which i hear is frowned up on here. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 14:17, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, I don't care whether it is "bad faith" or [[liberal bias]] that is so ingrained that it is done instinctively. The result is the same. Look up the important term "liberal" and find no entry for that term on Wikipedia. Instead, in a typically biased way at Wikipedia, it redirects the user to a different term with a different meaning. Wikipedia pulls the same stunt for "deceit". In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:06, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:: It's neither bad faith nor liberal bias but common sense. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 16:14, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Deceit seems to redirect to "Lie" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit on Wikipedia]. So your above statement seems disingenuous, Aschlafly. If you, as a curious user, look up "deceit" you will be directed to a page that talks about the immorality of lying (section 4). Similarly, it seems you have no article on "Lie," Aschlafly, as you can see (or not see) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Lie here]. What does that say about ''your'' site...? Please, you've got enough dirt on Wikipedia already, on legitimate counts. Don't invent others!-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 16:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
::I've corrected your lack of an article on "lie," Aschlafly. May I quote you Matthew 7:3, "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?"-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 16:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::: User:RichardParker, this is a high-quality site. If you enter another incorrect item like your redirection of "lie" to "deceit", then your account will be banned.

::: However, this has not been a complete waste. Your silly demand for an apology is being added to our growing list of [[liberal style]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The situations are not comparable. Conservapedia, a young, new project did not have an article while Wikipedia had a misleading redirect. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 16:39, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Explain how redirecting "deceit" to "lie" is misleading. They're synonyms to any educated person.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 16:44, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: ''<Says nothing>'' [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 16:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
By the way, I was going to drop this, but you resorted to ad hominem attacks, calling me a liberal without even asking me about my personal views. And that made me angry. I don't know who you are but I would appreciate (1) an apology and (2) a chance to cooperate on an equal basis.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 17:08, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Here's why Wikipedia's redirect is actually a form of deceit. Liberalism is a movement, a Liberal is a person. Concepts that Conservapedia has successfully illustrated like [[Liberal Bias]], [[Liberal Style]], and so called [[Liberal Intellectualism]] are censored on Wikipedia both because there is no article about what a liberal is, and also because they would be treated as "original research" despite the fact that they are true. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:37, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Liberalism is a movement, a Liberal is a person'' who is a follower or member or proponent of that movement and its beliefs. It. Really. Isn't. That. Difficult. A. Concept. For. Anyone. Of. Normal. Intelligence. To. Grasp. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 17:44, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Pachyderm, "liberalism" is an obscure term and there is no "liberalism movement." Go ask any [[liberal]] if he believes in liberalism, and watch his puzzled response. Do you believe in liberalism??? In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

All I will say is, "Aschlafly, you make a lot of assumptions." Since I don't want to get blocked over such a silly issue, I will hold my tongue.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 19:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

: Richard, we all know that [[liberals]] don't admit they are [[liberals]]. Not even [[Hillary Clinton]] admits she is a [[liberal]]. Apparently many [[liberals]] think they can be more persuasive by concealing their views. I admit that I'm a [[conservative]]. Why won't [[liberals]] admit who they are? It's part of the game, and [[liberals]] should not expect to get away with it here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I've disclosed my politics [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User%3ARichardParker&diff=289540&oldid=289299 here]. Also, Aschlafly adds another assumption! You know what happens when we assume.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]]

: You didn't persuade me, and I doubt you've persuaded anyone else here. But with that "disclosure" you could probably persuade some trusting visitors over at [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, if you look at [[user:RichardParker|my page]], you'll notice that you haven't persuaded me, either. I've concluded that, using your logic, you too are a liberal. But I don't have to prove myself to you. Godspeed.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 19:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::: "Richard", as I've explained, this is a high-quality site. I don't believe a word you've said so far, and all you've done is waste my time. You're in violation of our [[rule]] against 90/10 talk. If you seek more attention, then I suggest you find it elsewhere. If you want your account to remain unblocked here, then I suggest you contribute edits of value, and soon. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Actually, he has, if counted correctly, a 18/9 talk/edit ratio. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Before it all ends in a mudfight and name calling, let's summarize what we do know.
* Wikipedia redirects "liberal" to "Liberalism"
* The entry on "Liberalism" starts with a disclaimer that it only discusses a political ideology.
* For other uses of the word "Liberal" it links to a disambiguation page.
* The "Liberalism" article starts with an etymology of the word "liberal".
* Wikipedia redirects [[Liberal Bias]] to "Media Bias"
* For [[Liberal_hypocrisy|Liberal Hypocrisy]] Wikipedia brings you to a search page, and the 100% match is an article on the book "Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer.
* For [[Essay:Liberal_Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]] Wikipedia directs you to a search page, with as 100% match is "Anti-Intellectualism".
* Wikipedia has no article on [[Liberal Style]]
Maybe we should agree where the shortcoming of Wikipedia lies. And maybe someone can say exactly why and where the article on "liberalism" fails to explain what a liberal is. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beats me dude :-) -[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 21:30, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

: Order and Richard, I'll respond yet again, but I hope I find some substantive edits by you when I check on your contributions. Richard, I still don't believe a word you've said, and your edit to the [[marriage amendment]] deserved a "D". Your account is about to blocked in the absence of improvement.

: In response to Order, do tell us where I can find the [[liberal]] support of gun control on its ridiculous entry for liberalism. Nowhere. If you still don't get the point then spend more time reading and less time talking on [[Conservapedia]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Dude, I'm well within 90/10. But I'll write something else just to make sure. And your logic deserves something, but I don't know what letter grade. I hear you're the founder; nice to hear. But that's not ''carte blanche'' here, I hope. Have a nice night.-[[User:RichardParker|RichardParker]] 22:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
::Liberal support for gun control is mentioned on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#Some_positions_associated_with_modern_liberalism here]. It's quite easy to find -- just search for "liberal" (which redirects to "liberalism"), then click on the "Modern liberalism in the United States" link at the top. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:37, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Maybe I should spend more time reading, but I did actually some reading when I compiled the above list. Correct me if any of the observations I made was incorrect. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
: That's a different entry. The point is that liberal support of gun control is not in an entry on liberal or even in the entry that it is redirected to, the silly term "liberalism" (which is not even a recognized term in the same sense as "liberal"). Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
::Under the heading "Contemporary Liberalism" it is explained that Liberalism in the US differences from the "Liberalism" in Europe and it links to "Modern liberalism", which redirects to "social liberalism". This page mentions gun control. Also the disambiguation page links to "Modern American Liberalism" and that has a list of positions supported by US Liberals. Do you think that WP should link straight away to this article when a person looks for "Liberal"?[[User:Order|Order]] 00:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Not that I'm trying to stir up the pot since this whole argument is kind of silly, but I notice that [[Christian]] is redirected to [[Christianity]] on this site. I'm not sure how that's different from Wikipedia's "liberal" redirecting to "liberalism". Just my admittedly worthless observation.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 22:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

This has absolutely ''nothing'' to do with liberalism and everything to do with the English language. I am shocked that no one else has pointed out that Conservative redirects Conservatism, Fascist redirects to Fascism, Democrat redirects to a disambiguation page with links to "Democracy" (as well as the political parties), and so on. This is due to the fact that there is little distinction between these topics; if they were separate articles, they'd either repeat each other, or else one article would be dreadfully short ("A liberal is someone who holds to the tenets of liberalism; see liberalism). As a style issue, Wikipedia encourages the placement of the content to be about the ideology, rather than the holder of the ideology, so liberalism got the nod in this case. It could just as easily have been decided the other way, with liberalism a redirect to liberal, and this used as evidence of some coverup of the existence of liberalism. (Note that the reverse is often done for specific offices- hence President of the United States, not Presidency. But that's not an ideology.) [[User:QuietIsomorph|QuietIsomorph]] 23:38, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

: One problem, "liberalism" doesn't mean the same thing as "liberal". Worse, "liberalism" is not even a widely recognized term. [[Wikipedia]] obscures and confuses with this redirect, just as other [[liberals]] do when confronted with the term "liberal". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::If liberalism doesn't mean the same thing as liberal - why do we have liberalism redirect to liberal?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]
::Interestingly, though WP's liberal page is a redirect it does have a talk page that seems to indicate that the term was being misunderstood for the simple fact that it was over used. Aschlafly, you seem to have the desire to define liberal ''your'' way, as this is your site, it follows that that is what is going to happen. I do not know why you bother to defend what is yours, by rights. Let them rant. Just my 2¢. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 00:17, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We all know that CP and WP have different biases, so that is hardly news. What Andy refers to is that the WP entry tries to conceal an important aspect of "liberal" by redirecting to "Liberalism". If that would be the case, it would indeed be a serious omission. We already established that Andy considers "support of gun control" essential to "liberal", which isn't mentioned in the "Liberalism" entry. Are there more aspects to "liberal" that are not covered by "Liberalism"? [[User:Order|Order]] 00:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
::Rather than a demonstration of deceit, it's more a demonstration of WP's "world view" approach. Gun control is a significant aspect of liberal ideology in the US (where it is a contentious issue), and so rightly sits in the liberal article on CP. Outside of the US, certainly in the countries I am familiar with (UK and Australia), gun control is not a particularly contentious issue. In those countries, counting it as a signficant aspect of liberal ideology would seem peculiar. So in WP's "world view" article, gun control wouldn't get a mention, whereas in the US Liberalism article it does. In short, both CP's and WP's articles are appropriate for their intended audiences. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 03:30, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Sean Hannity

2007-09-25T16:58:13Z

Shocktherapy:

[[Image:SHannity.jpg|right|thumb|230px]]
'''Sean Patrick Hannity''' (born December 30, 1961) is a [[conservative]] talk show host and [[television]] co-host of [[Fox News]] ''Hannity and Colmes'' show. The youngest of four children, Hannity was born in [[New York City]] to Irish immigrants. He dropped out of college to embark on [[radio]] career, and in 1988 was at a small-town station of WVNN in Huntsville, Alabama. He later broke into a Top 10 market in Atlanta at 640 AM WGST. His national recognition came as an occasional substitute host of the #1 radio show of all-time - The [[Rush Limbaugh]] Show.

Allegedly on his first guest show, he dropped the golden EIB microphone because of a case of high nerves. This nationwide attention paved his way to national syndication.

==Television==
Sean Hannity was asked to join the newly formed FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 1996<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref>.
He accepted the offer and became co-host with Alan Colmes of ''Hannity and Colmes,'' a prime time one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref> Today ''Hannity and Colmes'' ranks among the leading cable TV news show (just behind ''Larry King Live'' and the ''O'Reilly Factor''). Critics contend that the conservative Hannity is given more time to talk than the liberal Colmes.

==Controversy==

Hannity angered traditional [[Catholics]] with his antagonistic treatment of Father Thomas Euteneuer on March 9th, during which Hannity criticized Fr. Euteneuer for prominent sex scandals in the Catholic Church.<ref>http://thebadguy.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/video-of-the-hannity-euteneuer-squabble</ref> After heated remarks by Hannity during the interview, he finally asked the priest, "Wait, would you deny me Communion?" To which Fr. Euteneuer responded, "I would."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070320</ref>

Critics of the man and his program frequently point toward what they see as a "double-standard", where agreeable guests such as Rudy Giuliani or Trent Lott are not challenged on their controversial views, while conversations with liberal guests rarely avoid such topics.

==Books==

Hannity's books use patriotic rhetoric as a main theme. His first book, in 2002, was entitled ''"Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism"''. The book remained on the New York Times best selling list for 17 weeks.<ref>http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/24930/Sean_Hannity/index.aspx</ref>
In 2004 he wrote ''Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism''. In this book he "reveals how the disgraceful history of appeasement has reached forward from the days of [[Neville Chamberlain]] and [[Jimmy Carter]] to corrupt the unrepentant leftists of the modern [[Democratic Party]] from [[Howard Dean]] and [[John Kerry]] to [[Bill Clinton|Bill]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]."

==Radio==

Hannity reaches approximately 12.5 million radio listeners each day, second only behind Rush Limbaugh.<ref>Newsweek, April 27th, 2007 issue, Pg. 29</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External Links==
[http://www.hannity.com/ Sean Hannity's Official Website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hannity, Sean}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

King of the Hill

2007-09-25T16:52:34Z

Shocktherapy:

'''King of the Hill''' is an animated show on [[Fox Network|Fox]] starting in 1997 and now passing 200 episodes. It was recently renewed for a 12th season. Created by the man who brought America Beavis and Butthead, the show has taken a surprisingly different turn than expected. A [[Texas|Texan]] family with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor, the show actually presents good [[family values]], such as the episode where Dale runs drugs for a vengeful druglord. Hank Hill, the father of the Hill family, seems to always do what is right despite the circumstances or ramifications. And "what is right", more often than not, involves intoxicating beverages. Many would consider this a pleasant alternative to the usual [[Television|TV]] fare rife with liberal fare like "Law and Order".

[[Category: Television shows]]