Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservapedia proven right"

Revision as of 00:42, March 10, 2022 (view source) FresnoCA (Talk | contribs) m (→‎Energy Independence: Reply) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 06:40, November 30, 2023 (view source) RobSmith (Talk | contribs) (→‎False claim)
(77 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 442:		Line 442:
	:Great new example of [[Conservapedia proven right]], again!  I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:11, March 8, 2022 (EST)		:Great new example of [[Conservapedia proven right]], again!  I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:11, March 8, 2022 (EST)
	::Thank You!FresnoCA 19:42, March 9, 2022 (EST)		::Thank You!FresnoCA 19:42, March 9, 2022 (EST)
		+
		+	== Ben Sasse ==
		+
		+	In the article, it notes that [[Ben Sasse]] would consider voting to convict [[Trump]]. It would be great if this was updated to reflect the fact that he actually did so, despite it being plainly unconstitutional. While I am slightly hesitant to consider someone a [[RINO]] for mere thoughts — all [[humans]] have made an unintelligent remark at some point — illegally [[Impeachment 2.0|voting]] to "convict" Trump is the height of being a RINO. [[User:MayGodBless|MayGodBless]] ([[User talk:MayGodBless|talk]]) 20:27, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
		+	:Could you explain a bit further on this?  Did Sasse vote for conviction in an impeachment proceeding, as is that what you mean?  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:05, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
		+	::That is exactly what I mean. Sasse voted that President Trump was "guilty" of "incitement of insurrection." See [https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00059.htm the vote tally on the Senate website]. [[User:MayGodBless|MayGodBless]] ([[User talk:MayGodBless|talk]]) 20:59, June 22, 2022 (EDT)
		+
		+	==The record==
		+	Previously, Conservapedia was proven right about 5 times a year; in 2020 CP was proven right 14 times, in 2021 proven right 15 times, and in 2022 so far 15 times, or about once every three weeks. To continue this trend, we need more space on MPR to add items, and less time and wasted space on MPR about UK potholes, gay buffets, and other nonsense. There have been many lost opportunities to develop readership and following, and expansion of this list because of mismanagement of MPR. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a chance'']]</sup> 03:24, December 7, 2022 (EST)
		+
		+	MPR needs to be used for "narrative development", both in mainspace articles and use on this page, and not for excoriating and ridiculing one's personal enemies at Rationalwiki with 800-1500 bytes of space. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a chance'']]</sup> 04:41, December 7, 2022 (EST
		+
		+	==False claim==
		+	RobSmith's latest addition is nonsensical. A treaty was ripped up in November 2023 implies that April 2022 changed global politics for the next 30 years???? I will remove it unless someone can supply a better source. [[User:MayGodBless|MayGodBless]] ([[User talk:MayGodBless|talk]]) 22:08, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+	:There's nothing wrong with it; the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. It took decades to negotiate. 34 years later puts us back to square one to re-negotiate a new treaty, if possible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 22:25, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+	::As [[Prof. Mearsheimer]] said, "The disaster we caused cannot be underestimated in terms of its scope." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 09:41, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+	:The treaty was first proposed at the Nixon-Brezhnev Moscow summit in 1972 and finally completed and signed in 1990. Both the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact went out of business shortly thereafter, before the treaty entered into effect. The treaty is still in force among 20 other signees, (the US and Russian Federation excepted).
		+
		+	:IOWs, the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe), together with the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) and NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty), were critical agreements that ended the 45-year-old [[Cold War]].
		+
		+	: Additionally, the Russian Federation has withdrawn from the [[OSCE]] (which was created by the CFE) and the European Council. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 23:18, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+	:The suspension of these agreements will take decades to re-negotiate; simply lifting suspension won't work. For example, the Russian Federation insists all NATO nuclear powers (UK & France) and perhaps China be included now in a new INF treaty. France & the UK show no willingness to participate. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 23:31, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+
		+	{{Warning collapse
		+	|reason=Off topic, trolling, personal attacks, etc.
		+	|content====Digression on 2022 bi-lateral Istanbul talks===
		+
		+	In September of 2022 website Zerohedge.com published the article [https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/western-allies-led-uks-johnson-sabotaged-tentative-ukraine-russia-peace-deal Western Allies Led By UK's Johnson Sabotaged Tentative Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal... In April] which mentions [[Boris Johnson]]'s April 9, 2020 visit to Ukraine.
		+
		+	Judging from the above article there was no treaty that was was ripped up. There was merely a tentative agreement giving the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement.
		+
		+	Furthermore, in October 2023, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder explained to the ''Berliner Zeitung'' how the United States sabotaged Russia-Ukrainian peace negotiations at the outset of the [[NATO war in Ukraine]]:
		+	:"At the peace negotiations in [[Istanbul]] in March 2022 with Rustem Umerov, the Ukrainians did not agree on peace because they were not allowed to. For everything they discussed, they first had to ask the [[American]]s. I had two talks with Umerov, then a one-on-one meeting with [[Putin]], and then with Putin's envoy. Umerov opened the conversation with greetings from [[Zelensky]]. As a compromise for [[Ukraine]]'s security guarantees, the Austrian model or the 5+1 model was proposed. Umerow thought that was a good thing. He also showed willingness on the other points. He also said that Ukraine does not want [[NATO]] membership. He also said that Ukraine wants to reintroduce Russian in the [[Donbass]]. But in the end, nothing happened. My impression was that nothing could happen, because everything else was decided in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]]. That was fatal.  Because the result will now be that [[Russia]] will be tied more closely to [[China]], which [[the West]] should not want."[https://archive.ph/wip/l8Klp]
		+
		+	So a key influencer when it comes to the Ukrainian regime was not involved in the tentative agreement that so easily evaporated. The Russians were talking to the Ukrainian puppet instead of the puppet master. Anyone who is a deal maker when it comes to big agreements knows that you have to get key stakeholders and influencers involved in order to nail down the agreements. See also: <nowiki>[[Essay: The SPECIFIC MONTH OF APRIL 2022 was not a pivotal point in politics that will affect politics for 30 years]]</nowiki>. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:54, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+	:Very interesting. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Additionally, NATO escalation also occurred in April 2022, anyway. You never addressed that fact in your [[narcissistic]] screed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 23:06, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+	::Putin's special operation escalation in February of 2022 turned out to be a run away train that is harming Russia (It is making the Russian demographic crisis worse. See: <nowiki>[[Essay: Russia is dying out. The war in Ukraine is making Russia's demographic crisis even worse]]</nowiki>) . His miscalculation shows that he is not some genius international relations chessmaster. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+	:::Well, it's too late for idle speculation on any of that. We're not going back to the post-Cold War era that ended in April 2022. Why? Begin looking at about [[Maidan_coup#Tech_camp.2C_terrorist_training.2C_and_Hromdske_TV|March 2013]] for your answer.
		+
		+	:::It would be nice to say we're in [[Cold War II]] now (which technically we are) but we need to go through a series of hot wars first.
		+
		+	:::Oh, and the [[Russian sanctions]] that took effect in March-April 2022 also facilitated the demise of the [[Bretton Woods system]] and ushered in a new era of global politics for decades to come. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 23:52, November 10, 2023 (EST)
		+	::::The world is always changing.  But judging from the big economic problems China is currently facing and given that Russia sells a significant portion of its oil to China things don't look very promising for the future of China and Russia (See: <nowiki>[[Essay: Russia's economy and gas and oil profits will be BADLY damaged when China's economy declines]]</nowiki>). But there are good reasons to be bullish about the future the USA (See: <nowiki>[[Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future]]</nowiki>). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:11, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+	:::::You're wasting your time. You weighed in [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservapedia_proven_right&diff=2002955&oldid=1909432 this discussion with 2,000 bytes] thinking we were talking about the 2022 bi-lateral Istanbul talks when we actually were talking about the 1990 multilateral Conventional Forces in Europe treaty.
		+
		+	:::::Nobody needs to prove you don't know what you're talking about - you do it yourself. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 00:17, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+	::::::User: MayGodBless wrote: "RobSmith's latest addition is nonsensical. A treaty was ripped up in November 2023 implies that April 2022 changed global politics for the next 30 years???? I will remove it unless someone can supply a better source. MayGodBless (talk) 22:08, November 10, 2023 (EST)"
		+
		+	::::::And I know that you don't know what you are talking about. Your past hyper Russophilia commentary about how great Russia supposedly is was totally debunked (See: <nowiki>[[Essay: Are the Russians as unhappy as they claim they are?|Are the Russians as unhappy as they claim they are?]]</nowiki>). And it doesn't surprise anyone that you haven't moved to Russia and continue to live the USA. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:26, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+	:::::::User: MayGodBless wrote: [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&diff=2001845&oldid=1993174 "RobSmith's latest addition is nonsensical."] User:RobSmith's latest addition reads:
		+	{{quotebox-float|''Wall Street Journal'' reports: "The United States and its NATO allies served notice Tuesday that they will '''formally suspend their participation in the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe treaty''' limiting conventional forces in Europe, marking the demise of another landmark arms control agreement." [https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-s-nato-to-suspend-participation-in-landmark-cold-war-arms-treaty-ddc08089 U.S., NATO to Suspend Participation in Landmark Cold War Arms Treaty, Michael R. Gordon, ''Wall Street Journal'', Nov. 7, 2023. www.wsj.com]}}
		+	:::::::Everything you posted in this digression bears no relevance to the thread User:MayGodBless started. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 00:35, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+	:::::::Comment: I've seen this time and again: certain words and phrases can trigger User Conservative (User:Karajou had the same tendency) while ignoring the context in which the term is used. It can set him off on one of his cut n paste, [[spam]] [[trolling]] sprees from his treasure trove of ready-made cut n paste material. In this instance, it was the term "treaty", together with his impulse to "attack Rob". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 01:16, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+
		+	RobSmith, you are not a paragon of civility and there is clear evidence of this matter. [[Conservapedia:CP Civility Association]] has 7 members. Due to your incivility, you only got one person to sign up for [[Team CP]].
		+
		+	"Attack Rob"? Your persecution complex where you constantly assert that others are constantly trying to demean, harm or threaten you, is paranoid projection behavior at best.
		+
		+	The truth is that you often attack others. For example, I recall you asserting without a scintilla of evidence that I was abused as a child. And then you gossiped about me which Andy had to address. Also, without a shred of evidence you asserted that User: MayGodBless is a covert RationalWikian who is a sockpuppet. In short, you constantly disrespect others and then demand respect for yourself which is irrational behavior because it is totally against the basic principles of sound interpersonal relations principles. Why do I say this? Because if you want respect, it is a good practice to show respect towards others.
		+
		+	You are apparently puzzled why Andy and other Conservapedians like me better than you. I hope I helped you understand this matter so things are more clear to you. "Olé! Olé! Olé! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:56, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+	:I said "whatever childhood trauma", referring to your savantism, like ''Rainman'', being an immature man-child. Some might say a retarded adult. Grow up. You're running with the big boys now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 09:24, November 11, 2023 (EST)
		+	Your continued frequent use of "hide template" is yet another example of you disrespecting others. And then you wonder why so many Conservapedians dislike you. If you want respect, it is best to show respect towards others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:18, November 11, 2023 (EST)}}

---

Latest revision as of 06:40, November 30, 2023

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--Andy Schlafly 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)

It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. Conservative 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)

I will combine them. Conservative

Nobel Prize Bias

Just a quick note that the link for the "leak" that Obama's prize was a result of liberal bias in the prize selection process goes to an opinion piece. Seems strange given that it's supposedly trying to prove something. Ideally this source would be a news article rather than an op-ed, or else this position should be removed for inaccuracy. - unsigned addition by User:Conservapediabias, Nov. 29, 2016

Tim Tebow

I think it's also worth noting that the only quarterback to have any success with the Jets that season (aside from Tebow, who was never given a chance for fear his performance would inspire viewers to see the truth behind his words about Jesus and conservatism) was not Mark Sanchez, from the liberal bastion of California, but Greg McElroy, from conservative Alabama. Not only did the Jets find no success without Tebow at quarterback, the lone bright spot of their year (a 7-6 win over the Cardinals when McElroy led the team while Tebow was being forcibly kept out by Rex Ryan) came as a result of a conservative calling the shots, rather than a liberal. --ChrisBaker 02:07, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

Neutrinos and the speed of light

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable ^[1]. Shall I remove this claim?

The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--JeremyK 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Cristie and Palin

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is Palin still listed as one and Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago?

The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Wouldn't that mean that we would have to cite every American above 35 as a potential nominee if the only criteria is that the person in question has a probability of being nominated that is greater than 0? - unsigned addition by User:Conservapediabias, Nov. 29, 2016

Newt Gingrich

• Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
• Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney

So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --Sid 3050 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Britain, atheism and the World Cup

• Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
• Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
• Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"

Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:

• Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
• The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
• This site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
  • Spain: 15 - 24%
  • Netherlands: 39 - 44%
  • Germany: 41 - 49%
  • Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
  • USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%

What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --Sid 3050 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Obviously nobody said atheism was the only factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--Andy Schlafly 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)

England's past World Cup ratings:

• 1950: 8th
• 1954: 6th
• 1958: 11th
• 1962: 8th
• 1966: 1st
• 1970: 8th
• 1974: not qualified
• 1978: not qualified
• 1982: 6th
• 1986: 8th
• 1990: 4th
• 1994: not qualified
• 1998: 9th
• 2002: 6th
• 2006: 7th
• 2010: 13th

Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?

Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the trend there isn't exactly indicating growing failure.

So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.

And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?

Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --Sid 3050 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Earthquakes

I'm surprised that this is still doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at this discussion and also at this one. --Sid 3050 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Jon Stewart Curse

Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does very well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

What is the point of this article ?

It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that "As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil." - James 4:16 --PhilipN 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--CPalmer 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." DouglasA 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the King James Version translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--Andy Schlafly 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Douglas, I'm open-minded about this, but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

I'm with PhilipN here, honestly. This article kind of feels like boasting. Why would you need to have an article about being proven right if everything on the website is correct anyway? Jake Brand 19:25, 9 June 2017 (EST)

Gay penguin

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. Gregkochuconn 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)

I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. Conservative 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

OK, you think that, but it requires proof. Do you have any such proof? I will say that there seems to be abundant proof that they do exist from reputable sources, so, if you want to support this theory, I would suggest finding reputable proof to support your hypothesis. - unsigned addition by User:Conservapediabias, Nov. 29, 2016

See the Homosexuality in animals myth page. VargasMilan (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2016 (EST)

References

1. ↑ http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp

Stalking Horse

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --JustinD 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

I have an open mind about whether Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many conservatives who had rallied behind him?--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. DVMRoberts 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of Conservapedia proven right?JustinD 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim Conservapedia proven right about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --BradleyS 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --JustinD 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --BradleyS 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --JustinD 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters perceived "Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--Andy Schlafly 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! Insel 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Another case of selective reading....

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. " So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? AugustO 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

You seem to be focusing on the hearsay in the article, which of course would be inadmissible in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

Please see hearsay society for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of deliberate ignorance or closed-mindedness. --AaronT 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in Counterexamples to an Old Earth are two seperate issues. --AaronT 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas.

But his claim is Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency. That's quite a difference!

And calling the claim that mankind is causing this [...] implausible seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! AugustO 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Predicted Increase in Premature Graying

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the article about you that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the Counterexample to an Old Earth page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --Randall7 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of Christ rising from the dead does prove several theories in Christianity.

With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the Hearsay society, I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --Randall7 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask Jesus for a reference after telling the parable of the Prodigal Son?--Andy Schlafly 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --Randall7 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. Nate 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. Sylvain 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. Nate 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. Sylvain 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

The Hearsay Society is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies logic and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. Pharisees used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--Andy Schlafly 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. Nate 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. Sylvain 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? Nate 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. Sylvain 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. Davidspencer 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --FrederickT3 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Jesus told the parable as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the Prodigal Son then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for hearsay.--Andy Schlafly 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. Davidspencer 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

But ASchlafly, you yourself said that a parable is "a fictional narrative." Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. Sylvain 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. JacobJ 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. Sylvain

So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as public schools might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? Sylvain 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the Prodigal Son, but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. Sylvain 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Opportunities for improvement

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

1. Ambiguousness of predictions - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
2. Links to predictions - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
3. "Liberal claptrap" responses - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
4. The results - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--DonnyC 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--Andy Schlafly 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --AugustO 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the Overrated Sports Stars entry.--Andy Schlafly 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)

I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors (User:Wonders and User:AugustO) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --AugustO 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--Andy Schlafly 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

• the article on Lance Armstrong was created in Sep 2007. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in Jan 2012
• In Sep 2007 wikipedia's article on Armstrong already had a long section named Allegations of drug use

So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --AugustO 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)

"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --DamianJohn 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Liberal denial about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Liberal denial about Armstrong continued well past September. Evidence?

There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great. Link?

There are those thinks called facts... --AugustO 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Just citations which show that Anheuser Bush and Nike are liberal companies... --AugustO 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And Anheuser Bush doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.

--AugustO 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --DamianJohn 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)

It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --CamilleT 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--Andy Schlafly 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)

I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). GregG 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)

(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --DamianJohn 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Rupert Murdock a liberal? AlanE 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. Dvergne 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal", those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? AlanE 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats. Since 2003, it has donated 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats. In 2012, Nike donated 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats. Since 2004, Nike has given 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, Koch Industries (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. Wonders 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to liberal Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)

But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to this source. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. GregG 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate Todd Akin. --DonnyC 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Relay

I read the National Geographic article, and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, GregG 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--Andy Schlafly 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --Praymond 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. GregG 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Media bullying

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. Onestone 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "media bullying" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the term. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular usage of the term. That is an essential difference. Onestone 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about Roe V Wade being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after Roe V Wade was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. Vyselink 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Newspaper articles often do have the problem of liberal denial, but are cited here for the facts they contain.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

The article's fact's also don't support the conclusion I'm afraid, which ultimately doesn't make a good case for this thesis. It states:

The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.

Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion. Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era. As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. MelH 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html --Tomqua 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Tamerlan Tsarnaev

Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the only citation provided is a link back to the same statement (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. Fnarrow 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

I stand corrected, there is now a source provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. Fnarrow 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, Wschact 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Within days the DNA evidence from the 9/11 triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) Yet liberal denial about the DNA match continues.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Proposed Enhancements

It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
-First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
-Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
-Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
-Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. WilliamWB 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, WilliamWB 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

I think 2012 is archived here: [1].--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [2] Thanks, WilliamWB 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

Variability of the Speed of Light

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. CenterK 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

The expert, number two seed, Andy Murray won the men's tournament; defeating a field of "best of publics".

What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a page, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? EddyJ 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't see what the victory by the #2 seed in the men's tourney has to do with this. No one is claiming that the experts always lose and underachieve, but they often fail - rougly 50% of the time judging by the Wimbledon results.--Andy Schlafly 15:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

Exactly. Thanks for the insight. EddyJ 15:22, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

What insight? To suggest that anyone who gets as far as Wimbledon isn't an "expert" is vacuous at best. The "best of the public" are playing tennis in their gardens or at the local club. The only thing they do at Wimbledon is watch. Every single player there is by any reasonable definition an expert. --ECornwell 17:21, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

Why stop there? Why not say that the "public" are people who are playing tennis for the first time. Then we can be sure the public won't win.--Andy Schlafly 18:07, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

ok so who isn't public? Just players who have won before?--IDuan 18:31, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

"Experts" are people like tenured college professors, a select few whom liberals claim know more than anyone else. For athletes, "experts" are the ones who get the big endorsements and hype. The public are those who try just as hard as the experts, but lack the recognition by liberals, sometimes due to political bias.--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

You're insane.--ErinTH 19:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

I'd have to second Erin here. You do understand that "effort" without results isn't rewarded in sports, right? Particularly tennis has nothing to do with effort - it has to do with who has had the most success in tournaments.--IDuan 02:06, 8 July 2013 (EDT)

I get what Mr Schlafly is saying, but I think I would label the concept differently. The public in this sense are those who are not well known within the general population but only within their own sport. Serena Williams is well known throughout the world. I would guess their are those who know who she is but unaware she is a tennis player whilst Marion Bartoli is not well known outside the tennis community and her home country. So maybe she is public-plus or expert-minus as she has made over 8 million dollars during her career--Tomqua 23:35, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

And I guess Serena Williams used to be "best of the public" before she became well known. After that she was an "expert". --HyramF 23:44, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

15th seed

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? Jacob Anderson 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

15th seed

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? Jacob Anderson 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

The 15th seed is far below the top four seeds who are expected by experts to produce the winner.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

So a functioning definition of 'the best of the public' is anyone outside the top four recognized world experts in a particular field?--DHouser 16:23, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

"There are no black holes"

This is sensationalist. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.” If Hawking is correct, then black holes still exist, just not in the way previously thought. Darwon 17:40, 14 December 2014 (EST)

Why was this removed?

I was looking through the page history of this article, and I saw that this was removed a while ago with no explanation. This seems like a very good argument for Conservapedia proven right, so I'm just curious why this was removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

Good question--that does seem odd. If you don't get a response here in the next few days, you could try asking Mr. Schlafly directly on his talk page. --David B ^(TALK) 12:43, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

This entry was getting long, and the removal was simply to trim its length. We prefer conciseness here, in contrast with Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

I still think this should stay, as it is a very good example of how Conservapedia was right the entire time. Maybe we could create sub-articles for this page to keep it concise, as with Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

The reason for the deletion is clear to one who has been around Conservapedia for a while; you're new here.

Let me explain. In a nutshell, the deleted item was put in by user Conservative, known a "Cons" for short. It was inappropriate for the Conservapedia proven right page.

Cons spends most of his time developing what might be called a "subculture" here at Conservapedia, focusing obsessively on a few topics like atheism, its connection with obesity, PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, homosexuality, Christianity, and utterly specious speculations about the connection between demographic trends and religious trends. He also occasionally comments on topics of politics and current affairs, and those comments are often intelligent and interesting. But most of his writing is totally inane.

Sometimes his inane writings leak out into "mainstream" articles at Conservapedia, the kinds of articles that the rest of us might be interested in. Conservapedia proven right is such a page. I disagree with most of what is in it, but at least that page is attempting to make sense.

When this happens, Andy Schlafly, the owner of this site, often steps in and deletes Cons's contributions. You see this most often in the Main page, where Andy deletes Cons's work fairly regularly. But he also cleans things up on other pages, and that is what you saw on the Conservapedia proven right page.

A sub-article for this is not necessary. Cons has written about this many times in many places.

SamHB (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

Why I removed some stuff

Let me explain my edits: "|The ratings of Fox News drops to a 12-year low, doing particularly poorly among the 25-54 age group." - does not prove RINOfication of Fox News. Viewership does not have a direct link to political content.

"|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing. " - But they never said that certain majors were worse, which would have been the only direct proof.

"|An unspeakable slaughter of 20 elementary school children occurred in Newtown, Connecticut by a 20-year-old player of violent video games, followed by a mass burning of violent games weeks later." - does not prove the link between video games and murder. In the same way, you could say that the Ford Escape makes you a murderer, as the San Bernardino shooters drove one.

"The lamestream media finally admits what Conservapedia has known for a decade: Fidel Castro is dead. Maybe in another few years they'll acknowledge the Affirmative Action President!" - But they did not prove Castro has been dead for 10 years, only that he is dead by now. JGurba (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (EDT)

In my opinion, you do have a point on the first and third edits. The first may have a valid point, but significant assumption is required to claim that there is proof. The third is in the same league as those who say that playing with toy guns will make you a murder. Shooting fake guns does not a murderer make. I will grant that many video games are excessively violent (and I prefer not to play them). However, the conscience is a powerful force, and is not seared by video games. Murder will still be strongly protested by the conscience, unless it has been seared by other actions and thoughts. I see this argument from time to time from some very good, Godly people, but I don't see how they can make such a direct correlation. If killing in a video game make one a murderer, what about all those who kill in the line of duty? Do they instantly become murderers as well? Despite what Hollywood tells us, many of them become or continue being "gentile giants." The mindset it what counts most.

On number two, I think the point is that they continue ignoring the problem of useless college majors. They accept their generous pay, and leave the students to suffer after graduating, when they find out all they can do is teach (which is a difficult field to enter). On the fourth one, you're right that they didn't come out and say it had happened ten years ago, but this is the first time they've even admitted he is dead. They have been ridiculing anyone who says he died in that hospital, but now they admit he died. They won't admit the extent of their deception (yet), but I say this one still stands.

I'm willing to debate it further when I have the time, but I think it's a bit hasty to throw all of this out. --David B ^(TALK) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (EST)

Facebook

I am confused about CP's prediction. Facebook originally had the model that if you post something, all of your friends would see it. It has moved to a revenue model where if you post something, you have to pay to "boost" the post so that more people (including your friends or people who like your page) will see it. So, the drop in organic views is as a result of the new revenue model. JDano (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2017 (EST)

relativity, and "celestial signals defy Einstein"

The problem was actually that item number 8 was being singled out, a fact which I ridiculed with my comment about "eye-catching title". There is nothing special about that item; it's just one of 49. The correct final outcome should simply be that the number has grown to 49. (And will presumably continue to grow, albeit very slowly.)

I believe that what I put in the "liberal claptrap in response" column is correct. I think Andy and I can agree that people disputing relativity would not get a faculty position or PhD.; we just disagree on the reason for that. Being a liberal or a conservative would not affect this; one's general political stance would not get you off the hook.

People discuss shortcomings of relativity all the time, such as the disconnect with quantum mechanics at the Planck scale. That won't get you sacked. Only complete non-acceptance will.

SamHB (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (EST)

St. Paul mayor says arrested protesters were from out of state

this edit is wrong. If you read the whole article you'll see those comments were walked back. So this entry is incorrect. JohnSelway (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Since when do news organization walk back mistakes? Russia Russia Russia. RobS^{Live Free or Die} 00:46, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Well, I’m not sure what Russia has to do with this but the media didn’t walk it back - the mayor did. So this entry is incorrect and says so in the very article linked. JohnSelway (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Quoting the article - However, later Saturday evening, the mayors of both St. Paul and Minneapolis as well as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) walked back their remarks about those arrested, claiming that they had received inaccurate information about the arrests made in St. Paul. . It should be removed. JohnSelway (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Fox News confirms it JohnSelway (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

That point is meaningless. RobS^{Live Free or Die} 03:26, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Sure, so a communist Democrat walks back a statement after Bill Barr made his. [3] Blah blah blah. They gonna toss the St. Paul mayor out of the party like they did Karen Whitsett? RobS^{Live Free or Die} 03:29, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Speed of light

(I'll get to the gravitational waves issue later, but this is simpler.)

The original item simply cited the question of whether one thinks the speed of light has varied. That is, that it is reasonable to ask that question. Stated that way, the "liberal claptrap in response" part would just have to say "No, you can't ask that question."

You have to take a stand on this. I infer, from the things various people have said in the past here at CP and at other websites that get cited here, that CP's position is that the speed of light has not changed in this way. I believe that's what the item wanted to say, and I have changed it accordingly. It is now reasonable for the "liberal claptrap in response" part to say, in effect, "No it hasn't." (The previous text there, that the speed changes in different media, was a stupid and complete red herring; everyone knows that; I'm glad you took it out.)

SamHB (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2020 (EST

Andy's edits of 23:51, October 31, 2020

He reverted a number of things (characterizing them with a favorite overused term -- "pseudo-science"), saying "let's discuss on the talk page first"). So here goes. I may partially restore this stuff in about 2 weeks.

1. The change of May 7, 2007: Removal of the nonsense about different media, and its relation to optics, was correct. But Conservapedia has an article on C decay. that is quite relevant to this and should be referenced.
2. The change of November 28, 2009: Google search of what? You can't just say that a Google search shows claptrap; everyone knows Google searches reveal that. But you can't just say that many articles are liberal claptrap when the reader doesn't know where to find those articles or what they are about.
3. The change of February 27, 2011: A great many footnotes were removed. Conservapedia does not censor. The footnoted articles have become even more relevant as time has passed and more gravitational wave observations have been made.

SamHB (talk) 19:42, September 25, 2021 (EDT)

Great edit

Great addition debunking the liberal myth that Chinese eat bats and that is somehow where coronavirus came from!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:30, November 29, 2021 (EST)

Dark days indeed when the libs have infiltrated Russia Today, Fox News the New York Post, and - my word - the Gateway Pundit. You should probably try & tell more people about Conservapedia. ConwayIII (talk) 18:33, November 29, 2021 (EST)

I dunno, looks more like publishers have Pfizer buying advertising, or the executives hold stock in Pfizer. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 19:05, November 29, 2021 (EST)

Energy Independence

(from Energy Independence Article last edited July 12, 2016): Conservapedia states that importing Energy from other nations can weaken countries and that importing Oil from Russia weakens America^[1].

Liberal claptrap: This won't weaken America, Fossil Fuels like Oil are not needed anyway-It is better that we transition to renewable energy, who cares where we get our energy from?

Conservapedia proven right: Continuing to Import Russian oil and the Biden Administration's canceling the American Keystone XL pipeline while lifting Trump's sanctions of the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Europe both weakens America and precipitates the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine^[2][3][4].

References

I present this particularly sad instance where Conservapedia was proven right again-FresnoCA 15:28, March 8, 2022 (EST)

Great new example of Conservapedia proven right, again! I'll add it now.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:11, March 8, 2022 (EST)

Thank You!FresnoCA 19:42, March 9, 2022 (EST)

Ben Sasse

In the article, it notes that Ben Sasse would consider voting to convict Trump. It would be great if this was updated to reflect the fact that he actually did so, despite it being plainly unconstitutional. While I am slightly hesitant to consider someone a RINO for mere thoughts — all humans have made an unintelligent remark at some point — illegally voting to "convict" Trump is the height of being a RINO. MayGodBless (talk) 20:27, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Could you explain a bit further on this? Did Sasse vote for conviction in an impeachment proceeding, as is that what you mean? Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:05, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

That is exactly what I mean. Sasse voted that President Trump was "guilty" of "incitement of insurrection." See the vote tally on the Senate website. MayGodBless (talk) 20:59, June 22, 2022 (EDT)

The record

Previously, Conservapedia was proven right about 5 times a year; in 2020 CP was proven right 14 times, in 2021 proven right 15 times, and in 2022 so far 15 times, or about once every three weeks. To continue this trend, we need more space on MPR to add items, and less time and wasted space on MPR about UK potholes, gay buffets, and other nonsense. There have been many lost opportunities to develop readership and following, and expansion of this list because of mismanagement of MPR. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 03:24, December 7, 2022 (EST)

MPR needs to be used for "narrative development", both in mainspace articles and use on this page, and not for excoriating and ridiculing one's personal enemies at Rationalwiki with 800-1500 bytes of space. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 04:41, December 7, 2022 (EST

False claim

RobSmith's latest addition is nonsensical. A treaty was ripped up in November 2023 implies that April 2022 changed global politics for the next 30 years???? I will remove it unless someone can supply a better source. MayGodBless (talk) 22:08, November 10, 2023 (EST)

There's nothing wrong with it; the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. It took decades to negotiate. 34 years later puts us back to square one to re-negotiate a new treaty, if possible. RobS^{Get thee behind me, Satan} 22:25, November 10, 2023 (EST)

As Prof. Mearsheimer said, "The disaster we caused cannot be underestimated in terms of its scope." RobS^{Get thee behind me, Satan} 09:41, November 11, 2023 (EST)

The treaty was first proposed at the Nixon-Brezhnev Moscow summit in 1972 and finally completed and signed in 1990. Both the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact went out of business shortly thereafter, before the treaty entered into effect. The treaty is still in force among 20 other signees, (the US and Russian Federation excepted).

IOWs, the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe), together with the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) and NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty), were critical agreements that ended the 45-year-old Cold War.

Additionally, the Russian Federation has withdrawn from the OSCE (which was created by the CFE) and the European Council. RobS^{Get thee behind me, Satan} 23:18, November 10, 2023 (EST)

The suspension of these agreements will take decades to re-negotiate; simply lifting suspension won't work. For example, the Russian Federation insists all NATO nuclear powers (UK & France) and perhaps China be included now in a new INF treaty. France & the UK show no willingness to participate. RobS^{Get thee behind me, Satan} 23:31, November 10, 2023 (EST)