Conservapedia talk:About

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lubby (Talk | contribs) at 14:15, July 30, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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 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?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 textnameItalic 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 textnameItalic 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjames (talk)

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. 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 --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". 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... – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк¢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. --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? 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. -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".--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? Philip J. Rayment 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


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. 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? 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.--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 here for an example of his vandalism.) Philip J. Rayment 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


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. --Erik 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. 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. -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." --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.--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. --Ymmotrojam 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --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! --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 he confused by the kilts?


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. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


An example of such, this page is. Liπus the Yoda(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. -- 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. --Ed Poor 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! Liπus the Turbogeek(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? --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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eljawa (talk)

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. --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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldoligarch (talk)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldoligarch (talk)

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. SierraTangoCharlie

The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. Karajou 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)


When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PandaBear (talk)

Who gives the facts? God?

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.

--DogChapman 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman

Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. 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? --Afi 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwforlife (talk)

FBI investigation

What is the current state of the FBI vandalism investigation against Steve "we have all the digits" Carson using IP address[1]. Have the FBI apprehended this felon? What is the charge? When is the court case? Does Conservapedia have representation? [2] Lubby 10:15, 30 July 2007 (EDT)