157
edits
Changes
Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project (view source)
Revision as of 22:30, September 10, 2011
, 22:30, September 10, 2011→Formatting - please read
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
:I added "agnosticism" and "cosmodicy". I didn't do "atheism" because someone had already done it. For now, have only done the -ism words, not the -ist words. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
== Dictionary API ==
== Dictionary API ==
I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And it wouldn't be a liberal redefinition then. IT would be society itself saying we like this word better for X definition, and word C should be something else or dropped. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
== A suggestion for proceeding ==
My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
== Formatting - please read ==
I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting idea, not sure whether it will actually work in practice or not. Here's a suggestion: why not copy one of the existing pages to a user subpage, e.g. [[User:KevinDavis/Conservative Dictionary Project (A)]], and then you can experiment there... I think, once it becomes something concrete people can see, people will find it easier to make their minds up whether it is a good idea or not. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 21:22, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a start; I don't know enough about how Mediawiki formats table to specifically collapse the borders, but how does [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] look as a first step? Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 10:43, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::On the first line, change <nowiki>{|border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center;" cellpadding="2"</nowiki> to read <nowiki>{|border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center;" cellpadding="2" class="wikitable"</nowiki>. That should collapse borders, and make it nicer looking. Also, I think we had a date of origin for some words as well? [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
== So... Parody ==
Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:: I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
== Different types of redefinitions ==
One of the headings is "False liberal redefinition". I am wondering if in some cases "liberal" is the most accurate word to use here. For some words, e.g. those about religious topics, maybe "atheist" is more precise? Liberalism and atheism go together often, but not always - not all liberals are atheists (there are religious liberals), and not all atheists are liberals (e.g. [[S.E. Cupp]]) [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)