Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Sorry8roNoHetero (talk) to last revision by Conservative)
(FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{debate}}
+
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
−
 
 
−
Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
 
−
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Yes== 
 
−
   
 
−
* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I'm confused, are you trying to be funny? I sure hope so. When you bring words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to bear, while taking one as YOUR side, it's, by definition, biased, and biased can never be balanced. Kurdt 
 
−
 
 
−
Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.   
 
−
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]] 
 
−
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT) 
 
−
 
 
−
:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)   
 
−
 
 
−
No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense. 
 
−
 
 
−
Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become. 
 
−
 
 
−
NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT) 
 
−
 
 
−
"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out." 
 
−
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia. 
 
−
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==No==
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia.  Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.
 
−
 
 
−
The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.
 
−
 
 
−
Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?
 
−
 
 
−
There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.
 
−
 
 
−
McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?
 
−
 
 
−
{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.
 
−
 
 
−
For Example...
 
−
 
 
−
Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."
 
−
 
 
−
Here is the Wikipedia description...
 
−
 
 
−
"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."
 
−
 
 
−
If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.
 
−
 
 
−
P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!
 
−
 
 
−
Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':
 
−
 
 
−
"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"
 
−
 
 
−
The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:
 
−
 
 
−
• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'
 
−
 
 
−
• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".
 
−
 
 
−
This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.
 
−
 
 
−
Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.
 
−
 
 
−
[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
-------
 
−
 
 
−
I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it.  I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature.  While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article.  However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.
 
−
 
 
−
Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
 
−
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
 
−
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced.  As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.
 
−
 
 
−
As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]
 
−
 
 
−
Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.
 
−
 
 
−
Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
--
 
−
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:
 
−
 
 
−
"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"
 
−
 
 
−
By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.
 
−
 
 
−
The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.
 
−
 
 
−
your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.
 
−
 
 
−
Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."
 
−
 
 
−
Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.
 
−
 
 
−
Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.
 
−
 
 
−
"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
 
−
boasting 1 reference
 
−
 
 
−
wikipedia:
 
−
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
 
−
3 references from a respected journal.
 
−
 
 
−
Think point made?
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!
 
−
 
 
−
Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)
 
−
 
 
−
Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.
 
−
 
 
−
Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.
 
−
 
 
−
No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.
 
−
 
 
−
There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not  factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...
 
−
 
 
−
Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.
 
−
 
 
−
Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display  conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...
 
−
 
 
−
Citizzzen 03.15.07
 
−
 
 
−
I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07
 
−
 
 
−
Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.
 
−
 
 
−
conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.
 
−
 
 
−
Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
 
−
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced?  Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">
 
−
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?
 
−
 
 
−
"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?
 
−
 
 
−
I've been reading and watching the news for forty years.  I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced.  Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
 
−
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true.  So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts.  If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia".  It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology.  [[User:50something|50something]]
 
−
 
 
−
Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources.  As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve.  I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source.  --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
 
−
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
 
−
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
 
−
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
 
−
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
 
−
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.
 
−
 
 
−
: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::*''We have become the smartest generation.''  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.
 
−
 
 
−
How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]<sup>([[User talk:Charles |contact me]])</sup> 11:15, 22 June 2007
 
−
 
 
−
Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
 
−
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news
 
−
 
 
−
:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!).  Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear.  It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence?  Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.
 
−
 
 
−
Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.
 
−
 
 
−
([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))
 
−
 
 
−
After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia.  I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site. 
 
−
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is.  6x more liberal than the average population?  Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it.  Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face.  Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.
 
−
 
 
−
In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.
 
−
 
 
−
~Slif
 
−
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
----
 
−
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights.  They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution.  Oh, they locked that page from editing.  Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore?  This is any more  "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.
 
−
 
 
−
NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
Conservapedia isn't meant to be fair and balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Is that a serious question? ==
 
−
The answer is quite obviously  an emphatic "No."  It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!''  That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.
 
−
 
 
−
*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page.  "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view.  Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view.  I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion.  This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.
 
−
 
 
−
For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.
 
−
 
 
−
==Of course not, but...==
 
−
 
 
−
Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]],  wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here.  For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative.  Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views.  Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor.  At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
: Yes, it does balance out Wikipedia. Which means that if someone were to read the articles on Creationism and Evolution on here, and then look up those same articles on Wikipedia, ''that'' would be fair and unbalanced. (Of course that assumes we have exactly the same amount of Conservative bias as Wikipedia has liberal bias, which frankly I don't think is true or even possible, but that's not the point). So yes, looking up the same thing on different sites which have different views is "fair and balanced" but any single one of those sites would not be. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:40, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==The Wedge Document==
 
−
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Absolutely not==
 
−
 
 
−
This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.
 
−
 
 
−
My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.
 
−
 
 
−
Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.
 
−
 
 
−
You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?
 
−
 
 
−
Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.
 
−
 
 
−
Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.
 
−
 
 
−
-MaxV
 
−
 
 
−
Kudos, Max, Kudos. I appreciate your tolerant views, as a liberal humanist and a human being. Thank you for being Christ-    like, not just Christian. I agree with you that Conservapedia is not fair in the slightest; an easy example: look under  the first paragraph of liberal and the first under conservative. It is blantly biased. I do not appreciate how negative this site is to people not of the Christian faith or have conservative views. But anyways.  Once again, thank you Max.
 
−
 
 
−
-IContainMultitudes
 
−
 
 
−
:Well, seems like some people make Christianity whatever they want it to be. A homosexual pastor falls in the same category as Christian abortion supporters. You may take this as bias toward others not conservative. I care to think of it as we don't tolerate sin, we aren't inclusive of sin, we don't coexist with sin. God said it was wrong for man to be alone so he created a woman, not another man. My guess is a gay pastor has to pick and choose his beliefs aka [[Cafeteria Christian]]. I am not condemning your actions or beliefs but there is a judgement day that you will answer for. The rectum was designed for a reason. Procreation? No. Love? No again. Waste discharge. Any other use is just an abomination. Are you reading this vandal site members?  The truth isn't fair.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST) 
 
−
 
 
−
::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING!  You think He's going to tolerate sin?  As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on.  I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off.  Thank you.  -- Mike H.
 
−
 
 
−
Just came across this looking for something else, but my answer to the question would be no, CP is not "fair and balanced" at least at in the sense that some hold WP to be, which, for instance, allows most any interpretation of the Bible to be treated as viable, as its basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and so Pontius Pilate could well be an editor. CP is evidenced to be an alternative to WP, which manifests a liberal bias. While WP is very useful in most topics, CP,  despite some drawbacks, allows a distinction to be made between truth and falsehood in places where WP would hold all as equal. 
 
−
 
 
−
As re your promotion of tolerance, as you are a homosexual pastor with a partner, you are obviously intolerant of the historical, and warranted position that leaves you guilty of fornication , and that of a most perverse sort. While arguments for such may be considered viable on WP, attempts to wrangle this out of the Bible inevitably negate its Divine authority, and renders God into an image more palatable to carnal men. In regard to such, see [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]], and may all find grace to repent and be truly born again and walk in newness of life.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==No==
 
−
 
 
−
Why is it so difficult to follow your own rules? Why is it so hard to simply let people say what they believe outside of mainspace? Is this an encyclopedia or a blog? This text was taken from a short-lived conversation I had with sysop Karajou over the email. I am not afraid of saying what I believe, and so long as I do not try to force my beliefs on others, you have no right to censor me based on your own rules. Unless you're all closet liberals or something. (Ostrich Syndrome is, after all, a very "liberal" disease to have, right?)
 
−
 
 
−
Subject: RE: Your behavior problem
 
−
 
 
−
Hey, first of all, thank you for emailing! That means a lot to me. I’ll start with the reason that I continued recreating my account using a privoxy. When I uploaded my opinions onto my userpage, I was not in violation of any Conservapedia Commandments. I was displaying liberal thoughts and negative feelings towards the site administration, but it was not in mainspace, it was on my personal page, where I can, by the site’s rules, voice my thoughts. I feel that Conservapedia is ruled through fear; your behavior as an administrator in this situation shows that you have no respect for your own rules or people that disagree with you, and since you have the level of power that you do, people are afraid of standing up to your persecution. I was blocked without violating the rules, and my only hope of appealing the block was nonexistent as I had no way of talking to anybody about the situation.
 
−
 
 
−
I apologize for violating the rules, but you must realize that a system of law means nothing if the lawmaker does not abide by it. I guarantee that you and I disagree on a great deal of topics, but that does not make one of us any more correct than the other. You and I are both human beings, and our brains are imperfect. Furthermore, for a site claiming to be Christian in nature, I see nothing Christ-like about it. It’s discriminatory and immature in the way it treats users, and I’ve never known it to spread anything but hatred and partisanship. What would Jesus do? For that matter, what would Buddha do? What would Muhammad do? The point of religion shouldn’t have to be war and hate. I would want to love people in the name of a higher power, not kill them.
 
−
 
 
−
I’ll respond to your points…
 
−
 
 
−
1) True, I should adhere to the subject matter. But Conservapedia claims to have no subject matter, and rather be a straight-forward encyclopedia without the Liberal bias of Wikipedia. For the record, I agree that Wikipedia has Liberal bias. I attempted to talk to the editors there about removing some of the essentially pornographic images on their vast library of sexuality pages, but I didn’t get anywhere…
 
−
 
 
−
2) I don’t want anybody to accept my beliefs. I want to get my opinion out there and show people multiple perspectives, something Conservapedia tries to… dare I say… censor. I disagree with CP, but that doesn’t make me right, it just gives me a different perspective. I want to explore the Conservative and Christian perspective, but all I got for that wish was hatred! Before the system failure a couple weeks ago, I was talking to a guy named Rod Weathers about it. I wished to explore the website’s point of view, since mine was so different. Instead of showing openness, he lashed out and attacked me for disagreeing, not even explaining his personal viewpoint to me. How is that any different than the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome, or the persecution of Zoroastrians by the Muslims? I am not trying to push Liberalism. I just want people to work together!
 
−
 
 
−
3) An encyclopedia based on free Wiki software is built around teamwork. Andrew Schlafly has even stressed the importance of that. If you don’t give people the voice they deserve regardless of what they think, you don’t have an encyclopedia built out of teamwork, you have a BLOG. It is a blog written and limited to a group of people who see eye to eye, and I know that isn’t what it intended to be.
 
−
 
 
−
4) I could call Conservatism a mental disorder as well, but I won’t because I know that both sides have valuable ideas to bounce off one another in contribution to a peaceful society. I believe in cooperation, and your attitude, your “behavior problem” as a person of power spreads hatred and discommunication. This doesn’t get anybody anywhere; when we make war with each other, we are pushing ourselves backwards! I don’t like Obama because he’s Liberal or Black or whatever else you hate him for. I like him because I believe he wants people to help each other out. Life is a struggle for anybody, and it’s too short to waste any time hating people. There’s no reason to strive to hurt other people or drag them down further for what they believe, just because you can’t see beyond black and white, so to speak. I’m really sorry for sounding so accusational! I’m trying my best to respect you, Karajou, I really am!
 
−
 
 
−
Everybody is going to hell. Islam extremists think that everybody who doesn’t agree with them is headed for eternal damnation. Christian extremists, such as the administration at CP, feel the same way about their beliefs. I understand that your faith is strong, but what makes it any more correct than anybody else’s? I feel that faith is believing in your heart that which cannot be proven empirically, and there are people of all religions who feel a strong connection to their faith as you do to yours. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true absolutely, and people who disagree with you are not going to hell automatically. To assert that you can decide what constitutes right and wrong is to assert that you are a God in your own right, and I just can’t bring myself to call that kind of behavior “Christian.”
 
−
 
 
−
I’m using a special program that randomly changes my IP address. I don’t know much about computers or the functioning of the internet, but this program isn’t really a proxy, and I don’t think there’s a thing you can do about it, to be honest. I came to Conservapedia as a sort of missionary, you could say. I’m not trying to impose my mindset on others. I just want to give the users of Conservapedia the freedom to think for themselves; I guess you could say that I’m trying to push Anti-Fascism, in a way. I know CP won’t change to my whims, and I don’t expect it to. But I believe that peace is always the better option, and that this site is an ironic joke, the exact opposite of what it set out to be, and I really want to help it get back on track with itself.
 
−
 
 
−
Thanks for your time, Karajou. I hope that you and I can sort this out soon! Best of luck to you.
 
−
 
 
−
Sincerely, Marvin
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
-----Original Message-----
 
−
From: (Karajou, real name censored for privacy reasons)
 
−
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:49 PM
 
−
To: hoeftfam@hutchtel.net
 
−
Subject: Your behavior problem
 
−
 
 
−
"Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you."
 
−
 
 
−
This is what you wrote above your lengthy rant, and it ends with "please don't label me using pejorative smears".  Your whole rant contains perjorative smears you used against the site, and you have a problem with a smear being labled against you?
 
−
 
 
−
Here's what I am going to say about this matter:
 
−
 
 
−
1. You do not have the right to enter Conservapedia, or any other website for that matter, and edit as you wish. If you think you can do that in the name of free speech, then find a Star Wars wiki and post articles on the American Civil War.  Let's see how far you get.
 
−
2. You do not have the authority to tell anyone who is Christian to accept your beliefs, your views, and your ideas in the name of tolerance; you do not have the authority to demand that anyone within Conservapedia or the administration here must be tolerant of liberalism or anyone who pushes it.  We have booted people off Conservapedia for this reason, and you are no different.
 
−
3. You do not have the right to come into Conservapedia and demand a voice.  We are building an encyclopedia, not a town hall meeting place.
 
−
4. Conservapedia is a conservative website and resource; that is the direction that we will take it, and we will highlight exactly what is wrong with the rest of society when and where we see it.  If this means showing off the mental disorder that liberalism really is, then so be it.  That isn't hatred for our fellow human beings; it is telling them that what they are doing is wrong, and by so doing, we are warning them from ending up in a place called hell.
 
−
 
 
−
You came to Conservapedia of your own volition; no one invited you.  And you expect us to change our ways to accomodate you?  The pushing of your own ideas as expressed in your rant has identified you as the fascist, not us.  Your further went out of your way to gain access to Conservapedia by using proxies and network sharing devices, one in Florida, the other in Prague.  That is called lying and deceit.  Do you think we should tolerate that as well?  Do you think we should tolerate people who have every intention to be less-than-honest when they come into our website?
 
−
 
 
−
The answer is no.  You are censored whether you like it or not.  If you have a problem with that, call the nearest congressman. 
 
−
 
 
−
Have a nice day.
 
−
 
 
−
[[User:MarvinST|MarvinST]]
 
−
 
 
−
Conservapedia isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:54, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
No. it's there in the title, CONSERVApedia. it's ok not to be balanced between liberals and conservatives, but you should never try to justify yourself if the sole goal of your cause is to support or propagate a decidedly polar idea or outlook--[[User:Flounder19|Flounder19]] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
No. But I don't think there's any source that's truly fair and balanced. The vast majority of our members and editors are Conservatives. Of course it's going to have a Conservative bias for the same reason Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I don't think that's a problem, because if it were it would invalidate every single source of news and information in the world. But it is most definitely NOT fair and balanced. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:36, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Telling the truth may not seem "fair" to those who wish to deceive, or are deceived themselves. But we don't follow the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced". We tell the truth, as well as we can. We also describe opposing points of view.
 
−
 
 
−
:It would be unfair to pretend that controversy does not exist, when actually people disagree sharply on all sorts of things. By presenting only one point of view, it's possible to give the impression that no other view exists. That would be deceptive, and yet it's the most common mode of argument.
 
−
 
 
−
:That is where we part company with Wikipedia. While professing to exalt a neutral approach to controversy, they began (around 2004-2006) to argue that describing opposing points of view gives '''support''' to these. They call this "undue weight" and "equal validity", as if describing something is the same as endorsing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:23, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==No, But...==
 
−
If people followed the rules and principles of the site it could be, and could be a great resource for understanding the world from a conservative point of view. Sadly, the site founder ASchlafly, and the user named "conservative," among others, seem to have little regard for truth, and only want to make all Christians look good and all liberals look bad. Really, the truth is more complicated, and we must be honest with ourselves and others when we take a look at it; it is possible to do this while maintaining our faith, and this is what the best of conservatives have done and how Christians can carry out the best works and truly reach others.
 
−
 
 
−
It is sad because this site could be truly useful if people didn't look at the flaws in liberal arguments and then try to do the exact same thing or even worse. The fallacious and trivial arguments on this site are an embarrassment. I can't in good conscience tell my younger cousins in school to use this site as a resource in its current form. I hate to say it but Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is currently more reliable and more balanced. I wish there truly were an alternative that were more focused on truth and less on trying to deny the other side as much as possible.
 
−
 
 
−
I really can't tell if Schlafly and the other major editors mean what they say about truth in a tongue-in-cheek or satirical way. But the Bible does not teach us to see truth in such a cynical way. And the world does not teach us that progress is made without confronting our problems. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:48, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Amen. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::A brief comment: As far as "making liberals <big>'''look bad'''</big>", while I certainly understand that some people have health conditions such as thyroid conditions which contribute to weight problems,  I certainly don't make obese and overweight atheists overeat or engage in other unhealthy habits such as "swilling beer" when [[PZ Myers|they already have a unsightly gut that could use some Slimfast instead]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:47, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Funny, and I'm not saying that PZ Myers doesn't deserve it - he's arrogant, confrontational, and disrespectful, and, yes, overweight. But that kind of attack belongs on a blog or an entertainment site, not an encyclopedia dedicated to conservative values. I don't consider that kind of gossip to be a conservative value. And it's not relevant to any kind of important truth. I don't mean to be too serious - I like a good sense of humor, and I want to contribute more on comedy and comedians (I've already added an entry on Nick DiPaolo). But that brand of humor seems like the territory of liberal blogs like Gawker and Perez Hilton, and seems to me a great example of Hollywood values. Thanks for your support, Joaquin. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 19:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::I also wanted to add that the claim that I want to make "all liberals look bad" is certainly an extravagant claim.  I am merely one person and there are certainly a very large amount of liberals in the world. There are only so many hours in a day and I certainly have other interests than supposedly trying to make all liberals look bad. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:10, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::By the way, I do find it telling that you implied I made a fallacious argument somewhere, but failed to support that contention. Given you are advocating that others act in a more noble manner, your lack of holding yourself up to a high standard is very poor form. As a result, I see no compelling reason to further posts to this web page.  But please feel free to engage in any [[last wordism]] that you may wish to engage in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this site. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::You complain over lack of substance but you fail to provide any.  So, where did Conservative make a fallacious argument?  One of the main points of Consevapedia is to hold liberals to account, and Conservative's articles do this in a fun and informative manner.  Wikipedia already exists, why try to turn Conservapedia into a copy of it? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::Jimmy - I never said that Conservative in particular made fallacious arguments, although it is true that he has done so. At least on the atheists and obesity page, he made hasty generalizations by giving a few atheists (the board of one organization) as evidence that atheism causes obesity, made a non sequitur argument by suggesting that a Gallup study showing that the non-religious are generally less healthy than the very religious showed that atheists were obese...but conservative is one user, he is not the issue, and for all I know he could work very hard and make positive contributions, and I have only seen the negative ones. That's a fair point, I don't know. But my impression is that a lot of the site contains a lot of ad hominem attacks, hasty and sweeping generalizations, and I think the most honest users see it...as for "lack of substance," see the pages on the characteristics of atheists and liberals, the pages on the Obamas, PZ Myers, etc. There's lots of irrelevant information that falls under the category of petty attacks....As for the point of Conservapedia - taking liberals to account certainly does matter, and I think it's great to satirize faulty logic on their side. This does not mean sinking to the level of triviality, making arguments we do not fully believe just because it's funny. I agree that liberals use illogical arguments all the time, but the way to address them is by showing how ''a liberal makes those arguments,'' not making them from a conservative standpoint and making ''ourselves'' look like the idiots. For example, [[Stephen Colbert]] is a liberal, but he mocks conservatives by making specious arguments from the "conservative" side. Some articles on this site seem like Colbert pieces, and those are mocking ourselves more than liberals...I don't think Conservapedia should be a copy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia claims to be from a neutral standpoint, but nobody knows what that is, so it can't possibly meet that standard. Conservapedia, on the other hand, does have a standpoint - that God does exist, and that fundamental American conservatism is correct - and that makes it different and more coherent than Wikipedia, at least in theory. And some parts of it do a great job at doing that. But these petty attacks on things like PZ Myer's weight and Michelle Obama's fashion, and the idea that all atheists are bad at everything and that everything Obama does is bad don't seem to contribute anything. If it's not (whatever else it is) a genuinely useful resource for conservatives, what is it? No liberals are going to read this seriously and be converted. Is it just a place to vent? If so, it's too bad that people are ranting and venting at the same place where lots of editors seem to have put in work creating informative articles [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:23, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::::Just one more point - everything we say on the talk page, or on debate pages, is peripheral to the real work of the site. I'm not that interested in picking apart the arguments made here, I'm interesting in improving the central content of the site. I'm fairly new to this and have contributed far less than many other editors but I'd like to know if anyone else shares my concerns and what people are doing. I really think this could be a great site and I thank everyone who's helped build it as a resource. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::::I have to disagree.  I think Conservapedia is already a great site.  Before signing up as an editor I observed the site for a few months and came to respect the culture that has developed here.  Sometimes people come in here so used to the watered down criticism of liberals they see in the mainstream media that they're unable to see the substance behind Conservapedia's critique.  I like the site as it is, and would hate to see it change.  If anything I'd like to see us step up our critique of liberalism.  You complain that our commentary on atheism and Obama aren't nuanced enough.  Again I have to disagree, some moral issues are black and white not shades of gray, as moral relativists would have us believe.  So to present these issues in any other way would be dishonest.  You also have to remember that the content Conservative authors is very popular and brings in a lot of page views. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:33, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::King, re: atheism and obesity: A few atheists? I suggest you return to grammar school and relearn how to count. It appears as though you want to play the fallacy of exclusion game and leave it all the relevant data I provided concerning the very religious plus deal with all the data I gave concerning atheists. You are not fooling anyone. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:43, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::King, please cite one factual error or one false claim I made in the article. You can't! :) I have decided to end the discussion on this page as it appears as if it will be unproductive. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:07, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 23:25, July 2, 2015

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_Conservapedia_fair_and_balanced%3F&oldid=1162927"