Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

It shouldn't. Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are postmodernistic in their thinking. Postmodernism asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous rhetorical question by Pontius Pilate.--TerryH 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. JoshuaZ 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are modernistic, which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "science" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. Atheists are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--TerryH 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). JoshuaZ 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe exactly the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." Dpbsmith 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --BenjaminS 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim not to have a bias and then take one anyway. --<<-David R->> 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative bias and conservative flavour. One can't have bias and be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. Tsumetai 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One can't be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half nonfactual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues or else we will abandon factuality. --BenjaminS 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. Tsumetai 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--Aschlafly 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--TheTruth 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be conservative. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --TimSvendsen 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It should. Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--ChrisF

I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--Sub Zenyth 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Counter Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what propaganda is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--TerryH 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Well, I do know what propaganda actually is and you are wrong. Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. That's not a part of the definition at all. What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.

Propaganda, n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [1]

Propaganda. Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [2]

..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any idea, fact, rumor, or lie, or a wider body of same, which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance or hinder any given cause." So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--Sub Zenyth 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

A story about the Christian Science Monitor

A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events.

One day my mother says to me on the phone, "You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today." I said "What do you mean? It was on the front page." She said "But though you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought I had heard that it never says that anyone has died." I said, "No, there was a huge obituary, on the front page." She said "What did they say? Did they say 'passed on' or something?"

I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like "Eleanor Roosevelt was Admired, Influential." The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. But it did not say that she had died. Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said "This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page."

It did not say she had died. But I never would have even noticed it if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda. Dpbsmith 05:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)

See also

• Rhetorical question