Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Stan Laurel

2008-02-17T16:38:03Z

SilasStoat: Cumbria --> Lancashire

[[Image:Stan Laurel.jpg|left|150px]]
'''Stanley Laurel''' (Ulverston, Lancashire 16 June 1890 - Santa Monica, California 23 February 1965) commonly known as '''Stan''', was one-half of the comedy duo [[Laurel and Hardy]].

''"He was a great artist who was also a family man and interested in everything they were doing."'' Huntley Woods.

[[Oliver Hardy]] and Stan Laurel made more than 110 films. Their chemistry was more than just on screen, as they were friends in life as well. Stan Laurel died in 1965 of a heart attack, 8 years after Oliver Hardy had passed away. Laurel vowed never to act again after Hardy's death, a pledge that he honored until his own death.

== See also ==
[[Image:L and H.jpg|right]]
*[[Oliver Hardy]]
*[[Charles Chaplin]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ L&H Website]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0491048/ Stan Laurel IMDB site]

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Laurel, Stan}}

[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Comedians]]

Mary (mother of Jesus)

2008-01-29T21:33:45Z

SilasStoat:

'''Mary''' (Blessed Virgin Mary or Our Lady, [[Greek]]: Μαρία, [[Spanish]]: Virgen María, [[French]]: Notre-Dame, [[Italian]]: Madonna) is the name of the mother of our Lord, [[Jesus Christ|Jesus of Nazareth]]. In the [[Gospel]] accounts, Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young [[Virginity|virgin]], by the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[gospel of Matthew]] describes the virgin birth of Jesus as fulfilling the prophecy of [[Isaiah]] 7:14. The [[gospel of Luke]] relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the [[Son of God]].<ref>Luke 1:26–38</ref>

== Crucifixion ==
[[Image:Murillo Inmaculada de El Escorial.jpg|thumb|right|'''''Inmaculada de "El Escorial"''''' by Bartolome Murillo]]
Mary was present during the [[crucifixion]] of Jesus Christ along with other women who had followed Jesus from [[Galilee]].

While Jesus was hanging on the cross, "there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary Cleophas, and [[Mary Magdalene]]. When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own" (John 19:25-27).

Following the crucifixion:
{{cquote|''Jesus was in the grave for three days. After the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of Jesus), and Salome prepared spices to anoint Jesus' body. When they arrived at the tomb, the stone had already been rolled away! They entered the tomb, where an angel said, "Don't be alarmed. . .You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you'" (Mark 16:6-7).'' <ref>
[http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/crucifixion-of-jesus-christ.htm Crucifixion of Jesus Christ - His Burial and Resurrection]</ref>}}

==Catholic Views of Mary==
The veneration of Mary is an essential belief of the [[Catholic Church]]. Mary is also venerated by Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] and Anglo-Catholicism. This veneration could take the form of prayer for intercession with her Son, Jesus. Many [[Protestantism|Protestants]], however, believe that the veneration of Mary is counter to what the Bible teaches.
<ref>[http://www.eich.com/allan/Catholics%20and%20Protestants%20believe.htm The Saints and the Virgin Mary]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm Problems with the Mary of Roman Catholicism]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC0300W4.htm The Biblical, Catholic, and Occult View of Mary]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=mary1 Cult of Mary - Part One]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=mary2 Cult of Mary - Part Two]</ref> For years, when it comes to Mary, Catholics and Protestants have been quite contrary. However, there are growing signs that differences over Mary are becoming less apparent. Many Protestant leaders are reevaluating and saying a greater emphasis on Mary needs to be considered. <ref>[http://www.understandthetimes.org/current_transcripts/text/mar2007/2175.shtml Understand The Times MARYIANITY] by Roger Oakland </ref>

Mary's passage into Heaven is celebrated by Roman Catholics as The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (March 25 and August 15). This Feast is a Public Holiday in many countries. In 1950, [[Pope Pius XII]] formally declared to be dogma the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary. ''The Orthodox Church expresses reverence toward the Blessed Virgin by the many feast days commemorating the various events in Her life. In prayers the Virgin Mary is called Theotokos, which in Greek means the Mother of God, since the One Who was born from Her was at the time of conception and always will be the true God.''<ref>[http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/mary.htm Honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary]</ref>

{{cquote|''Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; She shows the greatest humility and [[patience]] in her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); She exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John 19:25-27)... within the first fifty years after the death of St. John the veneration of Mary is proved to have flourished in the Church of Rome.'' <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia.]</ref>}}

<center>
“Henceforth all generations will call me blessed.” Mary, Luke 1:48.
</center>

==Protestant View of Mary==
While [[Protestantism|Protestants]] respect the life of Mary, some Protestants believe that the veneration of Mary is counter to what the Bible teaches.
<ref>[http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm Problems with the Mary of Roman Catholicism]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC0300W4.htm The Biblical, Catholic, and Occult View of Mary]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=mary1 Cult of Mary - Part One]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=mary2 Cult of Mary - Part Two]</ref>
For some Anglican Christians Mary has an special position within God's purpose of salvation. (Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans, make a clear distinction between veneration (which is also due to the other saints) and adoration which is due to God alone).

The Website ReligionFacts states:
{{cquote|....most Protestants have shown a great deal of honor and respect for Mary. [[Martin Luther]] said Mary is "the highest woman," that "we can never honour her enough," that "the veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" and that we should "wish that everyone know and respect her." John Calvin said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." Zwingli said, "I esteem immensely the Mother of God," and, "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow." <ref> [http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/mary.htm Mary in the Reformation and Protestantism] </ref>}}

== Marian Prayers ==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|Virgin Mary and Child]]

[http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryprayers.html Classical Prayers]

====Hail Mary====
The prayer "[[Hail Mary]]" (Ave Maria) has its roots in Luke 1:42 where Elizabeth (who is Mary's cousin) salutes Mary and in Luke 1:28 where the Arch Angel Gabriel salutes Mary.

''Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women<ref>Luke 1:28,42</ref> and blessed is the fruit of thy womb<ref>Luke 1:42</ref> Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.''

* Salve Regina (Hail, Holy Queen)
* Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary
* Mary, Mother of Grace
* [http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//prayers/mpray01.html Prayer of the memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe]
* Mary, Help of Those in Need
* [http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//prayers/mpray01.html Sub Tuum Praesidum]

The [http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryrosary.html Rosary] combines vocal prayer and meditation centered around sequences of reciting the Lord's Prayer followed by ten recitations of the "Hail Mary" prayer and a single recitation of "Glory Be to the Father".

=== Major Apparitions ===
[[Image:Fatima.jpg|right]]
*[http://www.memorare.com/mary/app1531.html Guadalupe, 1531]
*[http://www.memorare.com/mary/app1858.html Lourdes, 1858]
*[http://www.memorare.com/mary/app1917.html Fatima, 1917]

In the US, '''Lady of Prompt Succor''', (New Orleans, United States, 1809). Wind-blown fire changes directions, sparing the convent; President of the United States [[Andrew Jackson]] credits the Lady with the victory in the famous Battle of [[New Orleans]] in 1815.

==See also==
*[[Our Lady of Guadalupe]]
*[[Ave Maria]]
*[[Annunciation]]
*[[Mary Magdalene]]
*[[Rosary]]

== External links ==
[[Image:Mary Flag.jpg|right]]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm The Blessed Virgin Mary] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/mary.htm Blessed Virgin Mary]
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/rosary.htm#mary The Rosary]
*[http://www.memorare.com/mary/index.html Hail Mary] Information on the Blessed Virgin Mary.
*[http://www.cancunsteve.com/guadalupe.htm The Mystery of the Virgin of Guadalupe]
*[http://www.catholiclinks.org/virgenotrasaparicionesenglish.htm Virgin Mary, Other Apparitions]
*[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0079a.html Apparitions of the Virgin Mary, A Protestant Look at a Catholic Phenominon: Part Two]
*[http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8318 Feast of the Holy Name of Mary]
*[http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/aboutmary2.html The Mary Page] About Mary.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Bible Study]]
[[Category:Biblical Women]]

Conservapedia talk:About

2008-01-18T21:36:49Z

SilasStoat:

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==Finally!==

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]

This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.
Caznoob
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
: Wikipedia does ''not'' allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

It is '''very''' misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legitimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count today is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so the evidence for this "study" isn't valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- [[User:RWest|RWest]] 9:38, 27 July 2007

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people {{unsigned|Eljawa}}

== Edit request: copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

== Well, I'm pleased. ==

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Moderapedia?==

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

{{unsigned|PandaBear}}

== Who gives the facts? God? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:: No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism==

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. {{unsigned|Gwforlife}}

==FBI investigation==
Could we please have an update on this? People are curious as to the status of the investigation. Are you allowed to talk about it at this time?--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 12:51, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::And which people are curious about it at this time? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:Investigations are not launched on a newspaper front page. They are, by their nature, clandestine, unless a point is reached when an indictment will be served. I hope this was edifying. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::No harm in asking a simple question. In response to Karajou, these people here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=253308&oldid=253305],and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=253329&oldid=253320], and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=255042&oldid=255039], and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3AAbout&diff=255057&oldid=255056]would like to know. BTW, Learn together, how do you know there will be an indictment? The FBI may well determine this is not worth their time or trouble. Andy made it public that he reported username stevecarson to the FBI, so what is the harm in asking? --[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::You are concerned about trolls (or a troll) asking questions? Interesting. Hopefully you will take this opportunity to quickly learn FBI protocol. If they had started an investigation, they would hardly copy Andy with what they are doing. They will choose to act based upon their timetables and workload. Andy has informed them of a law being broken. That is the proper procedure to follow. In the event that law is broken again, they would be more likely to expedite the case. Andy has already set that foundation. We won't know, nor do we necessarily care, what is being done at this moment. We'll leave that to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

As has been previously established, the clandestine nature of investigation means we simply don't know. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::DanH, that is true, assuming that the FBI is conducting an investigation. However, why did Conservapedia ban the editors who asked the questions about the investigation? I understand the one who titled his "embarrasing question" as he was a troll, but the others I think, were not.--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Does anyone know how long "internet harrassment" investigations usually take?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::::OMG Conservative's asking about the FBI *BAN HIM* sorry :)

== Date ==

Could someone dewiki the date? This is the last holdout in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/2006 2006] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

While looking at the Global Warming article and its controversial nature (frozen), I got an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because there could be DOZENS of changes that might be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== NAME CHANGE ? ==

I love what you are doing, but with your passionate commitment to truth (unlike Wikipedia and the left-wing blogosphere) the name "conservapedia" tends to paint you as too narrow. You deserve to be widely used and cited, by all who want to learn useful and truthful information.

== You're missing a trick ==

Hello. I've created a new user really just to comment on this page. I'm a Wikipedia editor (different username) who's getting more and more fed up with their anti-christian bias, especially regarding the use of BCE/CE. However, I'm also not happy with Wikipedia's pro-American (yes, that's right) bias. This manifests itself in the way many articles are written and edited by contributors who don't seem to realise there's a whole world out there. Many topics are covered purely from the American point-of-view. Today I found out about Conservapedia (it was used as an example of "where to go" by an admin who was admonishing a user for making a perfectly valid BCE --> BC change) but was disappointed to note the Wikipedia description of Conservapedia, which states that it attempts to counteract the perceived anti-American bias of Wikipedia.

Perhaps you should make Conservapedia more global; get rid of the logo, for example, and if you do put an American slant on things, then maybe you shouldn't. I will look more at Conservapedia (I found out about it only 15 minutes ago!) to see if this really is the case. I hope it isn't, because there's a global opportunity here to fight against the political correctness of Wikipedia. Good luck with the project. [[User:SilasStoat|SilasStoat]] 16:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)