Talk:Main Page/archive11

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Prayer in schools misinformation

My understanding is that voluntary prayer in public schools is allowed - mandatory prayer or prayer led by teachers would not be allowed. So "liberals won't allow [prayer]" is misleading at best. This should be fixed, if the article linked to is actually news of any kind, the description should be fixed. As it stands right now, it does not sound like news at all.--TMills 14:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

TMills, are you speaking of any particular article?Associate 21:42, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
It was a breaking news article, it was probably off the front page by the time you looked. This section can be removed if necessary since its no longer timely, I don't know the exact protocol on that.--TMills 13:03, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Thad Cochran

As of 5 June 2007 at 12:52 AM (EST), Wikipedia has removed the section in the article about Thad Cochran which attempted to portray him as a racist by very, very loose association. --Tordenvaer

That deletion is certainly welcome. Thank you. But how about:
(a) an apology by Wikipedia to Thad Cochran
(b) discipline of the editors/admins responsible for that sophisticated smear
(c) cleaning out similar smears like it on Wikipedia
(d) all of the above

--Aschlafly 01:11, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

The smear falsely portraying Thad Cochran as a racist was in his entry since 01:18, 15 April 2007, remaining there for nearly two months and numerous subsequent edits to that entry. More than one Wikipedian admin and editor approved that baseless smear and it was only removed based on the complaint here.--Aschlafly 01:31, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

The irony is that Wikipedia's attempt at a smear actually backfired, since the alleged racist quote came from a democrat.--Conservateur 10:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia does not require every change to be approved by an admin...there's just too many articles. It's possible some idiot put that change in, and, as it was an article about a somewhat obscure congressman, it's possible no one noticed. People sometimes edit parts of articles without reading the whole thing. And if administrators apologized for every jerk who vandalized their site, that's all they'd do. Do conservapedia admins apologize for the vandalism here? Maestro 11:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

"A somewhat obscure congressman" and "it's possible no one notice"??? I doubt even liberals buy that one, Maestro. Many Wikipedians saw that vicious smear of a U.S. Senator, including a Wikipedian admin or two, and they did nothing about it.
Many liberals don't mind deceit. But many deny that. We're not fooled by the liberal "play dumb" act here.--Aschlafly 11:25, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I guess we believe what we want. But to whom do you think Wiki should apologize to? The late senator? His family? If that's the case, are you just assuming they didn't? Are you in contact with the Cochran family? Also, the editor who put the smear in made exactly one wikipedia edit--that one: They can't discipline him, he's long gone. Maestro 11:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Maestro, you're clueless. The senator is alive and well and serving in the U.S. Senate. He deserves a public apology from Wikipedia. The editor who did this should be blocked - both is account and IP address. It makes no difference how many edits he's done. But don't expect the liberals controlling Wikipedia to take these actions.--Aschlafly 11:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, perhaps you should amend your tone. Calling another editor 'clueless' doesn't seem apropriate or productive. The editing situation on Wikipedia is just as Maestro described above. Wikipedia is not the product of some monolithic liberal conspiracy as you assume. The editor who introduced the false imformation was acting alone, apparently. Thus, your demands are not reasonable given the context. NothingVentured 12:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
"NothingVentured", nothing has been gained by your liberal lecture. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly liberal, which of course you do not admit and may never admit. The liberal smear of Cochran was seen and approved by other liberals there, and no apology for it is forthcoming from Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia has not even blocked the ID. and IP address that did the smear.--Aschlafly 12:15, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
There was nothing liberal about my 'lecture' as you label it. I simply sought to clarify your error about Wikipedia's editing process and to point out that you were not behaving in the best of all possible ways. Your remarks indicate that you lack a firm understanding of how wikipedia's editing processes work. For your critique to be effective it needs to display understanding. That is all. Everything else is, plainly put, pure flack (or spin) on your part. NothingVentured 12:32, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Whoops, I thought he was the guy who just died of leukemia (they were both from Wyoming). So if someone came on Conservapedia, smeared a liberal politician with false though plausible sounding lies, and no one noticed for a couple of months, what would you do? Would you offer a public apology to the offended party? Or would you simply correct the mistake, ban the user, and move on? I think you're seeing a conspiracy, when it was just a lone vandal that didn't get caught. And did you post a message on the discussion page, asking for the editor to be disciplined? Did you research and correct the article yourself? Or did you realize this would be a fine opportunity to smear wikipedia, and leave the article as is? It's easy to find fault, it much more difficult to do something about it. Maestro 12:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Folks, you're both in liberal denial, and Maestro you still lack a handle on the facts (Cochran's not from Wyoming). Yes, Conservapedia does block id's and IPs of smear artists, and we don't wait for someone to request it. Wikipedia should do likewise. Of course Wikipedia doesn't, because liberals there want to smear conservatives. NothingVentured, you can call that Wikipedia policy if you like. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this here.--Aschlafly 13:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Where is public apology of Conservapedia due to vandalism against articles of persons? Or what is the reason why CP does not have to apology vandalized articles and WP has to? I think common rules of behaving concerns also CP. --Aulis Eskola 12:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

The identical smear was used against Sen. George Allen [1] by HNN & the New Republic in an October Surprise. Problem is, there was no association in this guilt-by-association smear. And we have too long a record of WP acting in concert with these purveyors and manufacturers of lies. I can produce evidence, if you so desire, of the ArbCom Chairman wishing to clean up WP's Harry Reid article because "he might be the next Majority Leader" at a time when the Stu Rothenberg Report said Democrats had little chance of regaining the Senate. Can you say, "illegal campaign contribution", becuase WP entries on Congress people do have a discernable monetary value. RobS 14:25, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of vicious smears

Has anyone seen this? A total disgrace.--Conservateur 10:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure why you say it is a "vicious smear" as bad as Wikipedia's entry about Thad Cochran. If your complaint is genuine, then please improve Pat Robertson. The page is not protected.--Aschlafly 10:25, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
I've disliked the Robertson article for a long time, because all it is is quotes, most likely out of context, just to make him look bad. But what other information is there about him worthy of an encyclopedia? bd Talk 13:34, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Here's some references The 700 Club Staff Bio -- Pat Robertson and Pat's Web Site Crocoite Talk 13:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I removed the smear quotes from Pat Robertson but some liberal immediately reverted them. I give up.--Conservateur 13:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not a Cochran-type smear if the quotes are genuine. I have mentioned a few times in the past that I think that the Robertson quotes take up way too much of the article and make him look bad, but it's not disinformation per se. DanH 14:05, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I think Conservateur is being less than straightforward here, and he can take that as a warning that his account will be blocked if I see similar examples in his other edits.
Speaking generally, I observe that while liberals delight in deceit, conservatives outgrew that amusement at age 6 and we've moved on to more productive activities.--Aschlafly 14:12, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Do you honestly think the quotes in the article were put there for any other reason than to make Robertson look like a modern-day Cotton Mather? I can't believe I'm even having to explain this. And where did I ever say it was as bad as WP's Cochran smear? That was your assumption. What I'm saying is that the Robertson quotes are clearly taken out of context in order to try to smear the man.--Conservateur 15:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Boston Globe article

So, um, where exactly is the review of the Pat Robertson article in that article? There is a brief mention of his name at the beginning but it says nothing of the article on him. --Colest 09:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, good grief. I assume that whomever put this on the main page is making some kind of subtly ironic joke... or has failed to perform due diligence and actually read the article. It is not a news item or an editorial, or even an op-ed. It's by columnist Alex Beam, a sort of humorist who takes an acerbic, opinionated view and is often ironic. In this case, however, what he says about Conservapedia is perfectly clear:
  • "...Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia for right-leaning wing nuts..."
  • "Andrew Schlafly...has created 'an encyclopedia you can trust.' And you can trust them, to give you some pretty loopy definitions."
  • "its... homosexuality entries ... do not betoken a broad-minded view of men and women at ease with their sexual identities... Conservapedia quotes the author of 'A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality' to the effect that 'there is no such thing as a homosexual, but only heterosexuals that have a homosexual problem.' Color me a heterosexual who has a Conservapedia problem."
The only thing he has to say that isn't explicitly an attack on Conservapedia is that he calls Conservapedia an instance of "modern Americans' penchant for seeking out congenial realities, known as 'cocooning,'" which he says both conservatives and liberals are prone to. "But until Leftopedia comes along... I have only Conservapedia to kick around."
If this deserves main-page mention, the Globe article should be described somewhat accurately.
"Conservapedia continues to attract mainstream press attention. Read how it gets under the skin of Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam."

Dpbsmith 10:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you Dpbsmith and the change is made. Excellent recap of the article and an appropriate suggestion. Crocoite Talk 11:02, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, the long and short of it is, this article is going to attract a lot of publicity to CP. Prepare to repel boarders. Maestro 10:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

During this spring in Europe there has been much publicity for Conservapedia also in main papers. Articles are describing CP which is seen first only as joke, but it is mentioned not to be a joke or a parody. Articles are noting that there are really living people who have written it seriously. (some net articles collected on my talk) --Aulis Eskola 12:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It's easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.--Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
There is no idea to put such kind of joke articles in main namespace if this site is trying to be an encyclopedia. --Aulis Eskola 13:12, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Liberals are obviously not familiar with Proverbs 9:12...
"If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer."
--Conservateur 16:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised that Conservapedia placed the link to Beam’s article on its main page. Oh well. It just proves that there is much to mock at this site. --McIntyre 12:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line, it does not really criticize us. It alleges Pat Robertson & the 700 wrote evertything, but apparently the author never read our entry on Robertson (written by vandals). Then it praises for our entry on Ann Coulter, again written by vandals. Talking about this only serves their purpose, diverts us from our work, and is just really another larger disruption. RobS 13:00, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Guys just ignore the media. Thats the trick you ignore them then they wont have anything to write about because we didn'y answer them or take any comments. Just ignore them and do what we do best and thats build this place to greatness.--Will N. 14:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
(Replying to RobS) No, the article does criticise Conservapedia, and it does not allege that Pat Robertson and the 700 wrote everything. It says that it looks like they wrote everything, as in the way they are written is like they would write them, but it doesn't actually claim that Robertson et. al. did. Philip J. Rayment 22:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, you need to take a course in reading comprehension. The Boston Globe article was very critical of Conservapedia, and did a good job of making this site look stupid. On the up side, the article may drive some people to view Conservapedia, if not for information, but in the hope of some amusement. --McIntyre 09:41, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

  • McIntyre, you need a course in civility. All publicity is good publicity. Do you make most of your living working and minipulating the media? I do. The repsonse was spot-on. If you think this place a joke, just please post on my talk page saying so, and I can help you out.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:02, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
He didn't indicate that he thought the site was a joke. Saying that some people might come here for amusement is offering an opinion on their motives, not on whether this site is a place for amusement. Hopefully, those who come here for amusement might end up changing their mind. Philip J. Rayment 10:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Today in History

Hey we need to update the colum Today in History.--Will N. 11:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've just done my bit. :-) Philip J. Rayment 11:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Also this is the anniversiy of D-Day.--Will N. 13:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I added a few things. DanH 13:08, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Building web traffic - most popular searches

I think in order to build web traffic that the search engines are going to be key. Therefore, it makes sense to create articles which have the most search engine queries as long as they are serious subjects and not merely "pop topics" (Britney Spears).

Here are some tools that will be helpful:

Most popular searches:

What people search for:

Google Keyword Tool:

Using the Google Keyword Tool above I was able to add 10 articles that need to be created to the articles that need to be created list that were related to the search engine keyword "Conservative".

Conservative 18:46, 6 June 2007 (EDT)


Just FYI--that should be "Earnhardt" (with a "d"), and there's a Senior and a Junior...--PeteVan 20:03, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

New York Times Buried The JFK Terror Plot Story Jaques 18:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Boston globe

The Boston globe article on Conservapedia would fit better on an anti-conservapedia site, than on the main page of conservapedia. I wonder why it was presented so promnitently. This doesn't look like an endorsement: Andrew Schlafly (...) has created "an encyclopedia you can trust". And you can trust them, to give you some pretty loopy definitions. Is this a case of subtle vandalism, or just another case of an editor quoting an article on the main page, while he didn't read it? User:Order June 7.

It's apparently a case of an editor who thinks that it helps Conservapedia to point out someone throwing muck at us and say "Look at him throwing flowers at us!" Dpbsmith 11:42, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Dpbsmith, as opposed to people on the Internet who believe one should comment on absolutely everything, no matter how negative, no? :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Shiny, shiny

I really do not think that many people have ever heard of the site "shiny, shiny." In addtion, the columnist is not being "widely criticized by the public," because most people do not even know the site exists. In addition, many of the comments are critical of conservapedia--Colbyjack 11:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

pssst -- criticism is invisible here, as long as there are some criticisms of the CP-bashers. It's just 'good publicity'. MyaR 11:36, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Hmmmm...Well, is it OK to try and offer a correction of sorts? Some of what was on the mainpage offered an untrue picture as to what was on the "shiny, shiny" site.--Colbyjack 11:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Guardian Unlimited article on Conservapdia

There is a (mostly mocking) article in the Guardian today about Conservapdia--Colbyjack 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Have you got a link?--Hilti 07:04, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I am at a loss to understand why a brief article written by a no-name author for a no-name website would be considered important enough to be front page news, especially when it's intended to mock Conservapedia. And the phrase "numerous public criticisms" has to be some kind of joke. I counted 11 comments, most of which joined in the mockery (including one from a former editor). I'm sure that whichever editor put this up had the best of intentions, but really, it's kind of embarassing. My two cents, anyway.--Conservateur 11:45, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Is this some sort of systematic problem? I understand why the Boston Globe article was highlighted the other day (major metropolitan newspaper), but the content of the piece was mischaracterized on the main page. It was almost as if the poster had not read the article. I thought that was embarrassing.--Colbyjack 11:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
With regard to articles about Conservapedia, there seems to be a philosophy of "There is no such thing as bad publicity" here. I can't help but feel that that attitude makes Conservapedia the Paris Hilton of wikis.--Conservateur 11:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Conservateur, once again, I question the sincerity of your comment. Please just tell us you're a liberal so we can confirm the source of your criticism.
What's "embarrassing" (note spelling) are the pathetic attempts to criticize Conservapedia. In the above link the original commentor probably thought she was saying something popular, but in fact the first three substantive comments were all critical of her. After I posted the link I see that other liberals are trying to rehabilitate the original comment, but they pile more pathetic remarks on it.--Aschlafly 11:55, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Even if you think disagree with Conservateur, I can not help but wonder why the first thing you do is to ask him if he is a "liberal". And then you continue with labeling his comments as "pathetic". Sorry, but this reaction is inadequate, and does completely miss the point. If you can't live with constructive criticism, you will end up with useless mockery or useless flattery. The question asked, as I understand, was: Do you care about the quality of news on the main page, and if you do, do you think that the quoted blog qualifies as quality content? User:Order June 9.
But that does not change that the article was mocking, and that most of the comments were critical. Conservateur did point out that it seemed strange to take note of a piece on a obscure website and place it on the mainpage. My concern is this: are articles about conservapedia being placed on the mainpage without some sort of vetting process? I just think it is important, because the mianpage is the first thing new visitors to the site will see.--Colbyjack 12:02, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
I think the main point here is that if you want to take the whole "badge of honor" approach to being mocked in the media, it serves your purpose more to stick with major media outlets. Even if they are liberal organizations, they still have more credibility than something like "". It makes it look like you are really reaching for something here, imho. --Colest 12:06, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
That's what I mean. If say, the NYT, CNN, etc. took note of conservapedia, even if it was mocking, go ahead and note it. But do not take note of sites no one has ever heard of. I would guess that very few people on this site ever heard of "shiny, shiny" until today.--Colbyjack 12:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Folks, why are liberals so embarrassed to admit their viewpoint? You're not fooling anyone here by trying to look objective. The liberal criticism linked above was trashed by the public response. Don't try hiding behind the NYT and CNN, which are declining and no longer able to censor public discourse.--Aschlafly 12:15, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
I am liberal. I don't think I've stated anywhere any kind of embarrassment. Truth be told, I think the repetitive criticisms of this site have grown stale - Conservapedia is what it is, and it has every right to be that way. I'm simply pointing out that it seems to be reaching when you pull criticism and response from an obscure blog and bill it as "widely criticized by the public." --Colest 12:26, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

OK. I’m a little puzzled. I was questioning why post remarks from an obscure (and a really, really obscure) website? As for the public remarks, there were only a few comments. It was not like the public came crashing down on the author!--Colbyjack 12:20, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Colbyjack, please state your point of view and stop trying to appear objective. Are another liberal who won't admit it? We're up-front and honest here.--Aschlafly 12:24, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, Andy, but you are not exactly up-front. You avoid answering any questions by labeling people as "liberal" or asking them for their "conservative" credentials. Sorry, that is not an honest answer to a legitimate question, that is plain evasive. User:Order 9 June 2:30 am
Well, I like to think of myself as a conservative, but I'm probably not a conservapedia type of conservative. I'm not a YEC or anything like that. --Colbyjack 12:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah. What is up with that? You want to know if people are liberal or conservative, but you seem to use it as a way of avoiding having a discussion. Maybe you are the best person to be running a wiki. There has to be some give and take and intellectual engagement.--Colbyjack 12:41, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
OK - I'll lay my cards on the table - I am a lib'rul. I'd like to repeat what Colest, Colbyjack, and Order asked - isn't this a fairly minor CP victory? It's not what you call a major news outlet, as its alexa details show : [2]. --wikinterpreter woo!
I don't think it can be called a victory, and why is it on the mainpage?--Colbyjack 12:56, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Also, calling a blogger a "columnist" is, just possibly, deceitful, given that columnist is a generally accepted word for a person who writes non-hard news, usually opinion, articles for a MSM (mainstream media, ie, not blogs) outlet. MyaR 13:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that is kind of dishonest. How can such a thing happen at Conservapedia? After all, we all know that only Liberals engage in deceit! Conservapedia says so!--Colbyjack 13:31, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Removing comments from talk pages

Apparently FredK got blocked, although I couldn't find his name on the abuse page, so I cannot tell why. But I wonder why his comment on this page was deleted[3]. He simply suggested that might be family unfriendly. I wouldn't agree with his assessment that the site is "gay". It is a site about "gadgets for girls", probably straight girls. But it does contains a section on "naughty toys", which I wouldn't call family-friendly. I have to agree with FredK that it is weird to have this site prominently on the main page. Call me a "liberal" for pointing this out, but linking to a page that reviews "naughty toys" doesn't strike me as extremely Christian conservative either. User:Order June 9. 13:35 (AEST)

  • Order, there is a possibility RobS' account was compromised. I unblocked user FredK. The Block log said "Vandal". You can help by checking on this user, and letting me know of anything untoward was edited by him. Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:40, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
I was mostly puzzled why his comment wasn't taken seriously, and even removed. It seemed like his concern was valid. even if he was a sock puppet, or something similar. User:Order June 9, 23:15

NY Daily News/Pro-Life label

It's not just the New York Daily News. The Associated Press stylebook, which is fairly standard for newspapers, says to avoid the term pro-life or pro-abortion, and to use anti-abortion. I have a friend who is a staff writer for my university's newspaper, and he told me that that's the case. The problem's a lot more widespread than one newspaper. DanH 14:29, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Referring to "pro-lifers" as "anti-abortionists", and to "pro-choicers" as "pro-abortionists" is probably the most honest thing to do because "abortion" is exactly the issue on which they disagree. "Pro life" and "Pro choice" are just euphemisms, in particular since many "pro-lifers" are not protecting all life under all circumstances - many of them are e.g. also pro-death penalty - and many "Pro-choicers" are not always in favor of choice - for example, many are opposed for you to choose to bear arms at all times. Rather than using euphemism I'd prefer if they call it by its name. User:Order June 10, 12:00 (AEST)
I agree with you completely. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are dishonest and sound as if they were chosen by marketers or PR consultants. I'd like to know what these stylebooks have to say about the phrase "pro-choice" and I wish whoever posted this on the main page had dug into that aspect of it. Dpbsmith 08:19, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
"Pro-choice" is definitely a euphemism, but "pro-abortion" isn't quite precise. Many people who are "pro-choice" would say they are actually anti-abortion, but feel it should be legal. Just like I'm anti-smoking, but I think smoking should be legal. That's not just liberal squishiness, either, for instance, Republican Rudy Giuliani has recently taken that position. Since "pro-life" is a euphemism too, and everybody knows what both mean, I'm content to just use the established euphemisms for both camps. -Tmills

Phrasing something in a positive way and something in a negative way does produce a different connotation, though. DanH 13:13, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Am I missing something?

I read both stories about the ex-policeman assisting in the restraint of a disturbed passenger but apart the difference in tone, one being chatty, the other slightly more factual, I could really see a difference between the two. What am I missing? (Exclaimer 16:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT))

Yes, actually. The Boston Globe makes it sound as though the passenger was just being a wild jerk. But the other paper makes abundantly clear that the ex-cop and ex-Marine were making sure that nobody else on the plane was "in on it" with the wacko. In other words, one paper is still playing down the "post-9/11" aspect, while the other paper is--well, I guess you would say that it is "playing it up." But this is one sort of angle that I would rather see played up than down, if you catch my drift.--TerryHTalk 20:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Ah, a bit subtle for me I'm afraid, so thanks for the explanation. Exclaimer 13:15, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Political spin usually is subtle. It wouldn't be effective if the spin were obvious. Thanks for asking. Do you recognize the political spin the NY Times' toothless photo? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Church objects to Cathedral being used as setting for a violent video game

I think this story might be worth a mention on the news page. It concerns the unauthorised use of the interior of Manchester's (UK) Cathederal as as set for a violent video game. Sony thinks it has permission but the diosis says it only had permission for standard filming and photography. I think it highlights both the issue of violence in video games and the disrespect paid to the Christian religion in the UK, please consider it for the news page.(Exclaimer 16:04, 10 June 2007 (EDT))

The story has been added to the Main Page. Thanks for your suggestion, and I welcome your further contributions to Conservapedia. Crocoite Talk 11:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Crocoite! (Exclaimer 16:04, 10 June 2007 (EDT))

How the liberals hijacked our classrooms

"Government tinkering has torn the content out of the school curriculum in state schools and replaced it with politically correct dogma" - Civitas report:The Corruption of the Curriculum File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Homeschool - South Atlantic style File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:38, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Biofuels story

It's worth noting that the 'UK Biofuel Scientist' story which you've posted on the Main Page isn't exactly about a scientist exposing this global warming-related issue as a fraud. It's clear that the scientist involved believes that Biofuel isn't enough, as it utterly fails to address the principle issue at hand - the need for everyone to greatly cut back on our energy usage. He's very clearly in favour of Green Activism and curtailing of our energy overuse. Given Conservapedia's position on Global Warming, you might not want to link to this article. DoggedPersistence 12:04, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

You fail to notice the parts that caused this article to be placed on the Main Page.
He (Clift) will tell the seminar that promoting the use of biofuels is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiesel is a complete scam because in the tropics the growing demand is causing forests to be burnt to make way for palm oil and similar crops. We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70-300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction.
Kemp and Clift point out that the surging global interest in biofuels derives from a “false belief” among politicians that there must be a technical solution to climate change.
When you look at things from a liberal point of view, you miss the conservative points. Crocoite Talk 16:01, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not looking at anything from a liberal or conservative point of view - I'm simply pointing out what's in the article. You are guilty of quoting out of context. The following sentence after your quote reads: "Kemp said: 'Underlying all this is the assumption that we have to preserve the mobility and freedom to travel that we now enjoy at all costs. However, when you look at the science of climate change it is clear there are no such simple solutions. Humanity has to accept that.'"
In other words, and the scientists point, is that the ONLY solution is not technical, e.g. biofuels, but the reduction of our energy usage. That's the point he, and the article, are making. DoggedPersistence 18:12, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

This seems to be a recurring problem. There were two stories last week on the main page that actually mocked Conservapedia. Are the stories being read before they are posted? Or could it be that the poster is a mole or a vandal of some sort?--Rube 14:11, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Homeschool and colleges

This article may be of interest. It's from the Washington Post, about how colleges are having to use different methods to consider the admission of homeschooled students. --Steve 14:47, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Guillermo Gonzalez

There is a mistake on the main page. The opinion piece cited (I thought that opinion pieces could not be used as support on Conservapedia) is credited to the Weekly Standard. It is actually from a website called the Daily Standard.--Oldring 08:30, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I've changed it. It seems that the Daily Standard is a web-article produced by the publishers of the hard-copy Weekly Standard, so it was sort of correct, but this piece was apparently written for the Daily Standard.
Opinion pieces can be used for the Main Page news.
Philip J. Rayment 08:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Ahmadinejad 'lacks a grasp of basic economics'

While I don't want to impinge on Fox's role here, this is quite interesting - it further confirms the idea that not all Iran is behind its rather dangerous president. --wikinterpreter woo!

Competing against wikipedia - our best chance

In marketing there is a saying that first is best. In other words, it is very hard to catch a leader. It seems to me that if you are to catch up to Wikipedia we should do it like the Japanese did who captured a huge share of the American car market. We should compete on quality.

With aforementioned in mind, I did some browsing of Wikipedia and Conservapedia using the random page feature. It appears to me as if a very high percentage of Wikipedia and Conservapedia articles are not cited. I believe if a article is not sourced it is not very useful and it can easily suffer from reliability problems. It seems to me as if articles that do not source their material should be "punished" by having a template slapped on them at the top of the article like Wikipedia does (but not nearly enough). I think we need to create a "this article fails to cite its sources template" and enforce it. I think we should send friendly reminders to Conservapedia editors to cite their sources and if they need technical help show them how to put in footnotes. I think that creating quality is perhaps our only way to effectively compete against Wikipedia and quality demands sourced material. I know that presently even some Conservapedia Sysops do not source their material. It seems to me that Sysops should lead by example, and if Sysops do not source their material then nobody else will. Also, a "this article does not source its material" should trigger the article being on a list so cleanup can be done.

Also, it seems to me as if a second template needs to be created. A "this article may suffer from factual errors" template. It seems to me that if we are going to resolve issues of fact using the discussion page that editors have to be alerted there may be a problem. Conservative 16:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Good idea, Heaven knows I'm bad with my sourcing, but a lot of stuff comes from my classes, so I try my best.--Elamdri 19:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Hoji is on vacation. What other Sysop could create these two templates? And once the templates are created we need to put the fact that the templates are available in a prominent place. Conservative 20:10, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Quick suggestion; We'll want to define what kind of stuff needs to be cited. See here for a summation of my point of view. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:16, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
A number of comments:
  • Regardless of whether or not the motive is to out-do Wikipedia, I agree that our articles being quality ones should be a goal.
  • Hojimachong's point about defining what needs to be sourced is valid (although I'm curious about the fact that he linked to an article with an opposing position to one he wrote!). Not every last detail needs to be cited.
  • A template at the top of a page declaring that the article doesn't cite its sources is not very helpful. What if, for example, half the article does and half doesn't? A better solution is the {{fact}} template that already exists, and is already in use. This is put after the particular claim that is not sourced, so other readers can see what actual claims need references. Applying the template already does put it on a list of articles requiring cleanup.
  • Also, Andy has said that he doesn't want too many large notices on articles.
  • In a sense, I don't see the need for a separate "factual errors" template. If an article has something factually incorrect, fix it or delete it. But see my next point.
  • Wikipedia does have two different templates for slightly different circumstances. One is used to question whether a "fact" is true, by asking for a source to be cited. The other is used to ask someone to provide a source without questioning the accuracy of the statement. We could implement something similar here.
  • These sorts of templates are quite simple, and I for one can easily create them, once there is agreement about what is needed.
Philip J. Rayment 22:26, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Rayment, I agree with you that the "fact" template can be useful. But who is going to be adding a slew of fact templates for an article that is completely uncited or barely cited. The answer is nobody as can be seen by our plentitude of completely uncited articles. In short, we need a "article not sourced sufficiently" template and better enforcement of the sourcing policy. It makes no sense to slap a template on a page if the offender is not asked to go back and source his/her material for the most part. However, if such a template puts the article on a list this can be useful too. Conservative 22:35, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so what you're saying is to have a notice (in the form of a template) that indicates that an article is completely (or almost completely?) unsourced, but for articles with some references but not enough, the {{fact}} or similar template could be used? That does make some sense.
I guess my next question though, is what the point of the notice is? Is it to alert other editors that sourcing is needed, or to alert readers to be wary about believing it? If the former, you don't need a big obvious notice, just something fairly inconspicuous that can add the page to a list of articles needing attention.
Philip J. Rayment 23:08, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I think what he is saying is that it should be like the stub template where you put it on the page, it warns the user that page may not be accurate, and also adds the page to a list so sysops can easily find pages that need a little fixing.--Elamdri 01:58, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I believe we have such already, and I know I monitor the list of articles with unsourced statements. I am sure many sysops do. We also have and we have several editors who specialize in adding those, along with the source notation. One of the main jobs of a sysop is to be adding those citations and notes, and/or making sure the contributing editors do. Finally, Andy has asked, many times, in many venues here, not to add stub-like templates. He considers them clutter. Perhaps a "silent" template will meet Conservative's needs? One that can be added to any article, but its only effect will be to place it on the "articles that need sourcing" list? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:22, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Rather than just a "silent template", simply putting a suitable category on the page will do the trick. Philip J. Rayment 07:25, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I brought this up earlier and was slapped down, but I will try it again. I question the concept of "concise" as part of the definition of "quality". While a good opening paragraph to summarize an article is a good thing, one of the things that stops me from looking to CP for actual "information" is that same concision. When I need to look up information about a subject, I will still look to WP first, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I am a liberal. WP's articles tend to be complete and thorough, CP's seem more like dictionary entries. Here are a couple specific instances, to illustrate my point:

  • Rugby - I started watching Setanta Sports, last fall, to watch English soccer. They also show a lot of rugby. I knew nothing about rugby and watching it confused me completely. I went to WP and found that there are 2 rules sets, what a number of the specific basic rules are, and a little history of the game.
  • Gustave Adolph - reading the book "1632", by Eric Flint gave me an interest in learning more about this historical character. Going to WP gave me a huge amount of interesting information, led me to follow link about the history of Lutheranism, and some of the other important religious movements of the time.
  • proxy.pac - I needed to create a proxy.pac file at work. Heading to WP gave me most of the information I needed to have.

I realize that it will take a while to get the depth of information on CP, simply from WP's head start, but it goes beyond that. Hitting "Random page" on CP rarely shows me a page that has more information than I already know, from a solid, general education. It seems that from the goal of "concise", this will remain the case. I enjoy CP because I can actually add information to some articles, while WP usually has editors whose knowledge surpasses mine, so my edits on WP have mainly been proofreading ro reverting vandalism. If I need actual information, I do not see CP fulfilling that need any time soon. Boomcoach 07:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

  • The "problem" with this entire topic is its false premise. To my certain knowledge Andy has absolutely no desire to compete with, or be like Wikipedia. Some of you are always missing this point. They are not our "competition" for they make no attempt whatsoever to be what we are. And, conversely, most of us here couldn't care two cents for changing to be like them. I like concise. If I wanted complete (and mostly needless) detail, I would go to a library, not some online wiki. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:32, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I am a little confused. I thought the premise behond Conservapedia was that it would be like Wikipedia, minus its liberal bias.--Snuffy 08:39, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

  • No. We are both Conservative and Christian friendly. Two things Wikipedia is not. And we are also "Family/Student Friendly" as well. No smutty surprises like one finds often on WP. Furthermore, we pride ourselves on the conciseness of our articles! Andy has posted many times that is a worthy goal, and I agree. Why try to be more like something we consider an abject failure and a deceit? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
If the goal is to be safe and concise, so be it. I still maintain that this will maintain CP in a small, and largely irrelevant, niche. As far as "If I wanted complete (and mostly needless) detail, I would go to a library, not some online wiki.", there are a number of times that I want information and it is not convenient to go to a library. As far as "mostly needless", different courses for different horses, I suppose. One person's "needless" appears to be another person's "interesting". TK, I would ask you, however, in the three instances I listed above, would you really have taken the time to hop up and head to the library (a 15 mile round trip for me)? I doubt that the average library would have much easily accessible information about the second two (a quick online search of my local library is devoid of books on Gustave Adolf, or even much about the 30 Years War.) The information from my Brittanica on him is less comeplete than WP's article, so I doubt that I would get much from most physical encyclopedia's. I will respect CP's desire for "concise" and will contine to add information to articles I have some interest in, but I do not see CP becaoming a better source for information than, for instance, the Grolier's that comes bundled with many PC's.Boomcoach 09:19, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Well Boomcoach, you aren't a Conservative who has for years been excluded from consideration on WP, are you? Scholars and serious academics do not use WP! They use Lexus/Nexus. They go to books. People who are Christian and Conservative, millions of them, will in time, find CP. And when they do, as we continue to grow, we will welcome them as our true brothers and sisters in Christ, and our true ideological kin. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:21, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Are Jews welcome here? Moslems? Hindus? Maestro 09:44, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Gee, I didn't realize that I was suggesting using WP for scholarly research. I gave a few specific examples, none of which involved my preparing a dissertation. I have no doubt that CP will find its niche, but if 2 and 3 paragraph entries are the goal of CP, then "millions of them, will in time, find CP" will only mean that ignorance has reached an all-time high in America. I was not attacking the political bent of CP, I was simply asking why "concise" was a good thing, and all I get is "I like concise", and political rants. Boomcoach 09:23, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I think Boomcoach has a good point. I go on the web looking for information. Now, I may do a google search and find an article on CP. Concise can be OK, but what if I want more info? Well, of course I would then look elsewhere. It seems to me that articles with more substance would keep readers here, rather than having them go all over the web looking for info. Just my two cents.--Fbaker 09:54, 14 June 2007 (EDT)