Colbert Report Viewers

## Contents

* 1 FAQ
* 1.1 Why is registration necessary?
* 1.2 Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?
* 1.3 Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?
* 2 WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS
* 2.1 Please comment or ask questions here:
* 3 Wikipedia is not helpful

## FAQ[edit]

This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.

See also : How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

### Why is registration necessary?[edit]

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

### Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?[edit]

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

### Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?[edit]

Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law. It can also appear in articles in science (evolution, for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).

But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses. For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject. Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles. Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.

## WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS[edit]

For previous discussions, see the archives: Archive 1

### Please comment or ask questions here:[edit]

Please sign all comments with "~~~~". Thank you.

Why do you have to make the Bible again? It's already been translated so many times. Why doesn't everybody learn to read Greek? Did Jesus even think of people as libreal and conservative? KhaderA 20:41, 14 December 2009 (EST)

## Wikipedia is not helpful[edit]

Aschlafly said: Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.

If you google calciumcarbonat, what's the first article to appear? Of course, Wikipedia's. Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by Wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO3.

In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by Wikipedia....

ComedyFan 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Also, if you want specifics about math, Vitali Set. Hessian Matrix. Tridiagonal Matrix. Homogeneous coordinates. Hilbert Space. Fermat's factorization method. Error function. Need I go on? These are just a few of the many topics that I learned about from Wikipedia. I have found these articles to be clear and explanatory to me. What part did you have trouble understanding? Where are the Conservapedia versions?EdmundG 18:53, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Yup, many students from numerous countries use Wikipedia every day to learn about different topics. I've used it for everything from solving minor curiosities to learning about statistical concepts. However, Andy has made it clear that Wiki articles are above his head (too many words), and as a result NONE of us are allowed to learn anything from it. A solid argument, indeed. Insufficient 22:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Congratulations on crossing the line into personal insults. JacobB 22:20, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Well he did say that they were not "concise and clear" enough for him.EdmundG 23:25, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Not sure whom you're quoting, but I said Wikipedia is not concise and clear enough to help students in a meaningful way. And I've personally taught nearly 200 students and helped them get into good colleges and win scholarships. "Insufficient" insults me and talks big, but gives no specifics. I wonder how many students he's helped, and to what extent. Maybe he'll tell us.

The unfortunate reality is that many Wikipedia editors are more interested in concealing information from viewers, such as the harm caused by abortion or the flaws in evolution, than actually helping anyone.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 11 December 2009 (EST)

A case in point is Wikipedia's article on CSS, i.e., cascading style sheets. When I tried to put in three simple examples, the information was removed on the grounds that I was providing "how to" information which should only be in Wikibooks. Apparently the article on CSS should be on every aspect of it other than facts such as bold formatting is obtained by entering font-weight: bold; into a style tag. --Ed Poor Talk 12:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I find Wikipedia very clear and concise and it helped me study for my exams and has since helped me in my work. From speaking to colleagues and students at the University I work at I believe it is of great benefit to those who use it as an educational tool. I believe that your disagreement with some of its articles has biased you towards disregarding the entire website.--Nick 23:15, 11 December 2009 (MST)

But Wikipedia is not just politically related articles (although Conservapedia seems to be). Sure there are articles on abortion and evolution, but there are also hundreds of articles on mathematics. Just because you disagree with the views represented in some of the articles doesn't mean that the entire site is worthless.EdmundG 23:58, 11 December 2009 (EST)

You're right that there may be some articles free from liberal bias, simply because it would be difficult to insert, but you'd be surprised how pervasive it can be. Obviously, all history, religion, philosophy, and politics articles are susceptible to bias, but so are science articles (evolution being a prime example), personal biographies, etc. For example, it might be hard to imagine how an article on Isaac Newton could be liberally biased, but that's because we've been so inundated with liberal bias we don't even realize it! I didn't know that Newton was a devout Christian, or that his insights came from the Bible, until I came here. I didn't know that the triangular trade never even existed until I came here. And I didn't go to public school - I have sixteen years of Catholic schools under my belt.
The point it, liberal bias can creep into almost any subject. JacobB 00:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)

The reason you didn't know triangular trade didn't exist until you came here is because it did exist. I've never heard of anyone except Mr. Schlafly deny this, and I'm curious as to why he thinks it didn't. DanielA 07:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Also, Wikiepdia states quite clearly that "In the 1690s, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible." I don't see any whitewash there. DanielA 07:55, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Another science example you might have mentioned-- Relativity. If you only read Wikipedia, you're not getting a complete or accurate picture at all. I had never heard about the flaws in Relativity before I came here. DanielPulido 00:09, 12 December 2009 (EST)

And as for your example, on math articles, even if there is no liberal bias in the wikipedia article, Conservapedia is the better reference. For example, the average student looking up the fundamental theorem of calculus, something every student should know by the time they finish high school, doesn't benefit from being told that it is a weaker form of the generalized stokes theorem, something students couldn't understand until the final year of a math bachelors. We keep our articles concise and informative, not bloated with confusing and unnecessary information. JacobB 00:06, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Well put, Jacob. The math articles on Wikipedia are not good educational resources. They don't earnestly teach. In their best light, they merely try to show off.

And thanks for Daniel's observation. As George Orwell said, "all issues are political issues." Liberal bias does creep even into math, as illustrated by the Wikipedian resistance to recognizing the concept of elementary proof, and how the Axiom of Choice has traditionally been disfavored.--Andy Schlafly 00:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Is there something particularly Conservative about an elementary proof? Also, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't George Orwell also say, "Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Captain2obvious 00:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Orwell's quote criticizes the conservative party. I also criticize the British Conservative Party! As to elementary proofs, there is "something" liberal about denying its significance. Liberals like to try to use math and science in deceptive ways to pull people away from the Bible. The concept of the elementary proof rains on their parade.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I went to a super liberal community college in Mass and they didn't allow us to use Wiki as a siting source because it's open source. We used databases with professors. Sorry Conservapedia, you lose on that count too. Now, if it's original source you want, you can find that on Wiki. It's a good place to start your research. I imagine that in some instances that's true for this site as well.

Dear Aschlafly, you made the claim that - to your knowledge - not a single student was helped in a meaningful way by wikipedia. To change your perception of wikipedia, one counterexample should be sufficient, and a couple of students have given such examples in this thread. Of course, each example is an anecdote - that's the very nature of counterexamples :-)
FrankC aka ComedyFan 09:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Which anecdote did you find credible? I'm seen some claims but found them lacking in specifics, and thus I did not find them to be credible.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

What sort of specifics would you like? Would you like me to name the time and place that I had a question, looked it up on Wikipedia, found the answer and the citation, and that this information helped me, as a student, achieve a qualification? I would quite happily provide this information, and so would many others, but I think you would dismiss our claims as being contrary to your world view and therefore untrue. If you would like my example, and if it would dissuade you of apparently singular state of mind then please ask. Nick 18:45, 31 December 2009 (MST)

I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole. The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better than a dictionary.

The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certainly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understand only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it? For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?

Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the definition of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula. It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.

Seeing as you apparently think this is a good thing, I guess there's no real way for us to ever be on the same page. Good luck on Conservkitionary. EdmundG 22:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Edmund, proper grammar is "no better THAN a dictionary," not "no better then a dictionary." But we're obviously teaching and learning and not trying to be a dictionary, so your point remains unclear.--Andy Schlafly 09:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Edmund. As a general rule, we try to be concise. But I don't think anybody is trying to say that none of our articles need expansion. We welcome any substantive addition that you may have up your sleeve. --Ben Talk 09:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Aschlafly, what's your criterion for being helpful? You wrote earlier ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands for each lecture.  Being top in the google ranks indicates that wikipedias's page on - for instance - calciumcarbonat was visited many times. So many people benefited from this material, ergo wikipedia is helpful.
Of course, you can always change your definition to: being helpful means leading your readers to reading the Bible, but then I'd accuse you of moving the goalposts.
And for your statement How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero. In fact at this moment the right answer is 11,716 : While there are no lectures and models answers on en.wikipedia.org, the wikimedia foundation (which includes wikipedia) has a whole project just to set learning free \- en.wikiversity.org
FrankC aka ComedyFan 08:58, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Frank, I haven't seen a substantive edit by you here yet. I had to revert your only non-talk edit (to Kurt Godel) because, as often seen in edits by Wikipedians, your edit added verbosity in a way that obscured the concise point. Wikipedians seem to insist on making professors look better than they are or were. Your style may fit well in the Wikipedia culture. But as I said, I'm not aware of anyone helped by it.--Andy Schlafly 09:12, 13 December 2009 (EST)

So, your definition of helpful is: something is helpful if I'm aware of it being so. Then open your mind, google "thank you wikipedia", and find people reporting how wikipedia helped them. Afterward you may still chose to ignore this information... FrankC aka ComedyFan 09:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I googled "thank you Budweiser" and received nearly 40,000 hits. Do you think that proves that beer is helping people? Certainly not. If you think Wikipedia is helping so many people, then why can't you provide merely one clear, specific, and unequivocal example?--Andy Schlafly 09:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Wikipedia has helped me many times learn many new things. It's also helped me with collaboration skills. I'm sure the same can be said for many others. Would it have hundreds of thousands of contributors and millions of readers, as well as millions of dollars in donations, if no one found it useful? The invisible hand indicates it is quote educational. DaveC 09:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)

(EC) Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits. It's not about numbers, you have to read the entries. But for a clear, specific, and unequivocal example FrankC aka ComedyFan 09:48, 13 December 2009 (EST)

(EC) Beer companies have even greater revenues, but that doesn't mean they are helpful. Your lack of specifics fail to persuade, Dave. Facebook is perhaps the best analogy: it is more popular and has far higher revenues than Wikipedia, yet at least one study shows it is correlated with lower grades by users.--Andy Schlafly 09:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure comparing an encyclopedia to a beer company or a social networking site is terribly practical, but no matter. I have my personal anecdotes about Wikipedia, you have your personal anecdotes about Conservapedia, neither, I guess, is a reliable source. Now, would you say Encyclopedia Brittanica is also useless because I can't prove it helped anyone get into college, nor does it have lectures or model answers? Now I'm curious. If how many students something has helped get into college is the sole criterion, then the public school system is the big winner there. Are you endorsing that now? DaveC 09:56, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Obviously any benefit would be offset by the harm. Public schools have produced over 30 million illiterates and wastes many billions of dollars a year, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

Wikipedia is comparable to Facebook, and it's shown to hurt grades rather than help them. The only specific anecdote provided here for Wikipedia (after several requests) is from a 2007 claim by a European that Wikipedia somehow helped him pass some basic exams. Meanwhile, there are compelling, undeniable examples of harm caused by Wikipedia. In addition, just check out how Wikipedia-supporters like you and ComedyFan contribute here: as far as I can tell, nothing of substantive value. Hopefully that will change, but it's a familiar pattern by Wikipedia types.--Andy Schlafly 12:48, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I'd like to know more about your claim that Wikipedia is "shown to hurt grades rather than help them". Following this up to your highly biased Wikipedia page I found a link to a story (that I believe is your source) reporting that a Wikipedia founder gets many emails from students who get poor grades because they cite Wikipedia. I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source, as the Wikipedia founder also states. If this is the reason for your statement that I think you are foolish for blaming the method of the student over the resource, surely we should be better teaching the students to cite the original sources, which Wikipedia contains many of. In fact, if this is the only reason for your statement then it should equally read "Conservapedia hurts grades rather than helping them", since the same method applied to Conservapedia would result in equally poor grades. Or perhaps you have other evidence for your statement that you'd like to cite? Nick 18:36, 13 December 2009 (MST)

Reading this, it seems to be apt to quote Stephen Colbert who said to you during the interview I want to create my own reality the way you are. There, Colbert will fail, I'm afraid. FrankC aka ComedyFan 13:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Frank, the more you talk, talk, talk in a silly way, the more you illustrate my point about your Wikipedia being a waste of time.--Andy Schlafly 13:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)

"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits." Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites. Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. --Benp 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)

I think your Google tubes got snagged on something during its search. I just tested this (Googled: "thank you conservapedia") and received 37,800 results. DerekE 16:22, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Doh. Nevermind. I just put the quotes around it... DerekE 16:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. Insufficient 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Oh, and way back (at the beginning of my block), Andy accused me of "talking big." I would just like to point out that HE is the one claiming to represent all Wikipedia users, saying that nobody has benefited from it in a meaningful way. I am merely trying to represent my own voice. And yet I am the one accused of talking big? Ridiculous. Also, I have nothing to personally gain from the defense of Wikipedia (I have invested no time or money into its creation), whereas Andy has a vested interest in slandering the competition, making his opinion biased from the beginning, and thus meaningless in this discussion. Andy keeps demanding "specifics, specifics!" But you know what? I don't need to prove myself to you. If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree. Insufficient 15:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree. See our page on professor values. JacobB 17:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I like how most of your arguments revolve around distrust in experts. You can think whatever you want of my professor's values, but he, like myself, has no vested interest in Wikipedia. Administrators on this site on the other hand, have a strongly vested interest in discrediting it (it is, after all, the competition). Therefore, your opinions are far more biased than my professor's. Insufficient 17:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says. It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better than I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.

I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".EdmundG 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

"Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three." Best quote of the whole discussion, Edmund. I find it ridiculous that Andy thinks he knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet he has the audacity to accuse me of "talking big." I can't remember if you were around for the evolution debate, but they played by the same tactics there as well. They had a ton of questions that they believed could not be answered, and then dismissed the answers that I gave without reason. Also, I am confused by the seemingly contradictory arguments that I am getting from this group. On the one hand, Andy is trying to use the number of students that he has helped to give himself some sort of authority (though I have yet to determine its relevance in this discussion). On the other hand, Jacob is saying that professor values are not reliable. This seems to take the wind out of Andy's sails, because the "help" he gives students is also dependent on "professor values." Insufficient 19:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Two replies: First, to NickNock, you say "I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source." You're clueless: encyclopedias, published ones, are valid references for any academic paper. It is encyclopedias like Wikipedia which are not published which are not valid references.

I'm sorry I completely disagree. The fact that an encyclopedia is published has no bearing on its validity and studies have shown that many published encyclopedias have errors. If a student is to properly learn and understand the material they should follow the encyclopedia's citation to the original source, read that and then cite it. To do otherwise is poor academic behavior, and I would never submit a paper for publication with such a citation. If I read an academic paper that did cite an encyclopedia instead of the original source I would be very disappointed because it would show a failure to have investigated the original source. Nick 18:55, 13 December 2009 (MST)

You don't seem to understand, that wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. If you cite an encyclopedia in a college paper, you'll be fine. Cite wikipedia (or Conservapedia, for that matter) and you'll be marked down. Whether you think that's right or wrong, that's how it is. JacobB 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Ah, you've changed your definition now. You originally said 'academic paper', meaning a paper published in an academic journal for which many journals hold a policy of not citing encyclopedias but only the original source. You now say 'college paper', which I presume you mean any piece of work handed in by a student to a college. If so, the requirements come down to the standards of the college itself. I would hope that a good college would encourage students to locate, understand and cite the original source, as that will improve their education in the subject. However, if you have experience with other colleges then I accept that. However, I stand by my earlier statement that the publishing of an encyclopedia has no bearing on the validity of its entries. Nick 19:13, 13 December 2009 (MST)

You're right - that's my mistake, I meant college paper. I graduated from the University of San Francisco, a tier 1 Catholic school, so if you'd like to find fault with their methods of grading, be my guest. But you will be hard pressed to find a school which considers Wikipedia a valid source, or Britannica an invalid source. JacobB 21:17, 13 December 2009 (EST)

(edit conflict) OK, Nick, but your argument begs this question: what would make an online encyclopedia worthy of citation, in your view? Certainly it is not the volume of entries or its ease of editing. Wouldn't you agree that allowing gossip and lacking rules to reduce liberal bias by numerous anonymous editors are disqualifying conditions?--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

In my opinion an online encyclopedia shouldn't ever be cited, and I would honestly prefer that no encyclopedia be cited. My reason for this is that all encyclopedias should present a wide and unbiased view on any subject, and one that backs up all statements and sources with a citation. That way anyone studying the subject can gain a more detailed understanding by pursuing that citation and hopefully citing it. Faced with all the arguments and evidence a student can then come to his or her own decision on the subject. While I'm sure you'll agree there are some facts that are unassailable (e.g. France is in Europe, the second World War did happen), many areas of science, politics and religion should be open to honest debate. I think a good encyclopedia should present as many sides to these arguments as possible and allow the reader to come to their own decision, instead of being forced to accept the thinking or beliefs of their peers without questioning it. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you can often find both sides of the argument on its website. If you feel this isn't the case and that your worldview isn't properly represented then I appreciate your concern. However, I do feel that Conservapedia goes too far in the other direction and only includes the arguments for your own opinions and not those of the other side. I think this does your encyclopedia an injustice and while this discrepancy stands will make it the inferior choice to Wikipedia. Nick 19:28, 13 December 2009 (MST)

Really, Nick, you honestly feel that Wikipedia has "both sides of the argument" on evolution, abortion and other important issues? Please show me where, for example, Wikipedia's entry on abortion informs readers about how it causes premature birth (the major cause of infant mortality and lifelong disabilities) in future-born children. The scientific evidence and common sense are overwhelming that abortion causes such harm, yet Wikipedia omits it. Among African-Americans, abortion is at three times the rate for Caucasians, and devastating premature birth in the African-American community is three times the Caucasian rate. Why does Wikipedia omit that?--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I admit I'm not an expert on abortion, but I believe the statement "Patients who had undergone previous induced abortions have been shown to have a higher risk of preterm birth" is what you're looking for in the article on 'Preterm birth' that I followed through from that on abortion. Perhaps you don't feel it was placed prominently enough in the article or that it should be in the abortion article itself? Perhaps you should add this risk under the section 'Health Risks' on the Wikipedia article. I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently, but I'm not an expert on the relative dangers of this, and both Conservapedia and Wikipedia present conflicting citations. Clearly a discussion is needed and unbiased scientific studies should be done. I would note that the Conservapedia article is highly biased to other degree, with only arguments against abortion and little information about the process itself. Faced with these two articles, that from Wikipedia appears less biased to a neutral and has more useful information about the process. Nick 20:03, 13 December 2009 (MST)

Of course that should be in the abortion entry itself, not buried in an obscure other entry. Everyone knows that readership falls off sharply after the first page, and falls even further respect to links. In fact, how would anyone learning about abortion even think of looking at an entry on "preterm birth." The connection would not even occur to most people.

An abortion entry should explain the harm, and risk of harm, and let the reader assess that information. You essentially seem to oppose providing the information for the reader to decide, and instead want an entry to appear neutral rather than provide substantive information. Wikipedia is a good home for your approach. We emphasize information here, not a (false) appearance of neutrality.--Andy Schlafly 22:21, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I agree that the statement should be more prominently placed, thats what I meant by "I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently". Perhaps you could place it more prominently? Also, I certainly do not oppose providing the information for the reader to decide so please indicate where that idea originated from. I feel that the Conservapedia article has less information allowing the reader to decide about abortion than the Wikipedia article does, so I would suggest that statement more appropriately applies to you. I do believe an article in an encyclopedia should be neutral and provide substantive information, neither of which apply to the Conservapedia article. I do not believe that Conservapedia provides sufficient information on many subjects, but I know that is because of the strong conservative bias that your encyclopedia has. That bias, in my opinion, invalidates it as a useful reference source for any seeking impartial information on a subject. Nick 20:29, 13 December 2009 (MST)

Nick, your defense of the bias on Wikipedia is unpersuasive. Wikipedia won't allow the more prominent placement of key information, which you say you support, and I doubt you'll even try to correct it. Nearly 99% of your edits here have been talk, talk, talk, and your minor substantive edit here had to be reverted for its incompleteness. We provide information here, and welcome others who want to do that.--Andy Schlafly 22:57, 13 December 2009 (EST)

It has not been my intention to defend the bias of Wikipedia, but merely to point out that your website is much more biased, and therefore less useful to someone seeking impartial information. It is you who have not defended your own bias, or perhaps you are alright with your encyclopedia being highly biased? Certainly that allows you to control the information such that it conforms to your own world view. On the subject of the information in the Wikipedia article on abortion, why haven't you tried to correct it if you feel so strongly about it? I am not an expert in that field and therefore I feel it would be wrong to make such a correction myself. Maybe you have tried to change it already and it has been changed back. That would indicate to me that more people on average feel it shouldn't be there. Perhaps you should persuade more people to change it so that the weight of numbers is on your side? Or perhaps gather some experts to advocate the change? If you are choosing to attack my work on this site then I'm disappointed in you. I don't think my liberal or scientific views would be appreciated here. The one change I did make was to point out a very strong piece of evidence for General Relativity in an article devoid of such evidence. That such an important piece of information was unconstructively removed echoes my concern that your articles are often highly biased. Nick 21:08, 13 December 2009 (MST)

Nick, the bottom line is that you seem fine with consensus defining "truth", and your edits here reflect that. Nearly all talk, plus one edit that reflected Wikipedia-style consensus rather than the truth (the Mercury perihelion data no longer confirm relativity predictions within the standard of error). You're unaware of the flaw in your sole substantive because you rely on consensus to guide you, rather than relying on principled authority. I urge you to reconsider, but you have free will.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. JacobB 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)

(edit conflict)Edmund, typing "better then" rather than "better than" is not a "typo". The keystroke "e" is not next to "a". It's not a big deal either, but let's admit it when we're wrong and not let a mistake spread to mislead others.

"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia. You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like. It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn. I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did. I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--Andy Schlafly 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olympics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.EdmundG 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Ah, so you're just here to argue then. Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. JacobB 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I'm going to increase Edmund's block duration because he offended those having disabilities. Obama did the same thing.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)

This is sort of in response to the frustration insufficient and edmundG have been experiencing. Firstly, for full disclosure, I vote republican - always. I believe in conservative policies in general. This site doesn't actually have a lot to do with conservatism though. What I have gathered from reading some of the rather heinous articles and following what might only loosely be described as argumentation on this Colbert discussion page, is that it must be true that ASchlafly and his cronies are just con men. Some of the things said here are so incredulous as to defy disbelief. I watched the interview and I don't think he's insane or stupid, so I can only conclude that the act that is put on here is a complete sham. The argumentation you're proceeding with is only dragging people here to watch the train wreck. They will never agree with you, they CAN'T. It's part of the rules. They aren't allowed to be open minded.

That being said, I understand the attempt. There are one or two things that I found particularly off the mark that for no practical reason I will try to answer - even though I know no matter what the answer is, they can't allow it. I will do myself the service of allowing them the last word so as not to drag myself into a slime pit of argumentation.

The first is the unbelievable argument that people aren't evolved because they don't have a third pair of teeth. Holy cow. Well that's true - but we also don't know how to run at 70 miles an hour like a cheetah. The answer in this case is very simple. By the time you would replace your teeth, you would no longer be child bearing in all likely hood. Even if you happened into the mutation, there is no selective pressure to distribute that gene around as it never helped you when you were young and alive. On the contrary it may have been a hindrance initially - prone to infection and possibly distorting the earlier rows of teeth. Additionally, mutations like that usually develop from some more vestigial part of the body. There would need to be something that could be mutated to something more and more like teeth. More teeth wouldn't just appear as a mutation. This is just a fact of embryology.

The second is the almost laughable point that Andrew tries to make about teaching "nearly 200 hundred" students. Most teachers do that every day. You made a horrible complaint that public schooling creates illiterates. Not true- they were illiterate to begin with. At best, they failed to get the child and the parents to participate. But surely you don't mean to let the parent off so easily do you?. The numbers appear overwhelming because an overwhelming number of people go to public school. And thank god for that. Public school was one of the most dramatic changes of fortune the country ever saw. And thank goodness conservatives of the time failed to block the laws instituting it.

Finally, at best I may respond to the question of evolution - but ONLY if someone is interested in understanding it and not arguing it for arguments sake. Mhildred 00:12, 14 December 2009 (EST)

We're very open minded here, Mhildred. I suggest you take our quiz to see if you are: Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness. Second, we are here to create an encyclopedia, it is most of the Colbert crowd who have come here to argue. JacobB 00:16, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly my point about the charlatanism! Those questions are so leading, so tuned and biased as to be useless. You might consider letting a trained psychologist explain how those kinds of quizzes are properly created. You can't create a quiz with questions that have ONE ANSWER and call it the open mindedness test! For example, the question regarding evolution - apparently if you are are not an evolution denier you're closed minded. In other words, you're closed minded if you don't hive mind with conservapedia. Wow, truly! Mhildred 00:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded. Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded. What part of this obvious truth do you deny? JacobB 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)

All of it! You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question. You can question it and decide that it was correct after all. The openness is in the ability to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you. Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence. Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it! My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it. That's closed. Asking if that may be true or not is open. Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. Mhildred 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. JacobB 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)

To follow up the discussion on open minds and turning from something you were taught I would like to submit a small piece of my life. From birth I was taught strict conservative Christian ideals in a traditional southern home. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I started to question the reality that I knew and began researching many avenues to find the "truth." Now, ten years later, I find truth to be relative to perception. Personally, I find that logic leads to a scientific view of the world. I feel that all knowledge should only be provisional and subject to modification based on better evidence. So, am I open minded for turning from something I was indoctrinated with as a child?DaveGBx 09:28, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Do you give equal time now to the Bible, the most logical book ever written? I bet that what really happened is that liberals succeeded in pulling you away from the Bible, to the point where you spend less than 5% of your time on it now. It's a censorship that is often repeated, with tragic results. Those who wake up and start giving the Bible equal time again never regret it.--Andy Schlafly 09:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

I will admit that no I do not spend equal time on the bible now. The Bible being the most logical book ever written is certainly a moot statement. If I were to only use one reference point as the base for my perception of the world then I would miss the valuable insight that other points of view offer, weather they be flawed or not. You don't have to agree with something in it's entirety to glean some fundamental knowledge. I find the bible to have sets of ethics and values that transcend dogma. At the same time, I don't believe science and its practices to be all knowing just a method by which to draw provisional conclusions. DaveGBx 11:11, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Dave, you have free will. The Bible is like a good diet. One can choose to never eat foods that are good for you, but the outcome is not pretty or desirable. Put another way, you're not helping anyone by refusing to read the Bible, least of all yourself.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

A diet, like an open mind, should be well balanced. Too much of any one thing is a bad thing. -- I've never "refused to read the bible." As I stated previously I was raised Christian. I have read and studied the Bible.DaveGBx 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Dave, I'm confident that your statement above is artfully misleading, like saying you have eaten lots of vegetables but omitting that you haven't eaten any in the last 20 years. Diet is a daily matter, and so is reading. The issue is what you do now, not what you did in the distant past.

Someone who is in denial about he censors the Bible from his own life is going to be in denial about many other important points also.--Andy Schlafly 10:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Continuing with the diet metaphor, if you eat only vegetables on a daily basis you will find yourself surviving but malnourished. I do respect the idea that the Bible is the sustenance for ideas and ideals of the Christian community. -- I certainly do not censor the Bible from my life. I think about it frequently and occasionally read from it, just not in the way that you might want me to. Please, provide some examples of other points that I may be in denial about. DaveGBx 11:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Dave, the issue is excluding vegetables or the Bible virtually entirely from the daily diet. You say you "do not censor the Bible from" your life, but I'm confident you do not give Bible reading equal time or even 5% of your time. If that's not censorship, then what is? Liberals would be jumping up and down and if they were ever censored by limiting them to less than 5% of one's daily diet of information.

What else are you in denial about? I bet you're in denial about the very real existence of Hell. Many of us, even those who allow Bible reading to be more than 5% of our time, fall into denial about that. Yet Jesus talked about Hell more than he talked about Heaven, a fraction greater than 50%--Andy Schlafly 13:19, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I don't devote a specific amount of time to any book everyday unless it is part of my studies. Even then the time would come when I have extracted all the practical knowledge and it would be time to move on to a new subject. If I kept reading the same book for the last 26 years I would still be reading "Good Night Moon" and other children's books. -- To censor something, such as the Bible, would be to actively block it from others or myself. I don't intentionally block or exclude the bible so it's not censorship. My daily actions do not fall under any traditional definition of the word censor or censorship. -- A persons choice of daily information is theirs alone, a liberal would never know if someone chose to limit them to 5%.

I do not deny the existence of hell, nor do I confirm it. The existence of hell cannot be tested, cannot be proven and cannot be known. Therefore, It cannot be denied. -- Fear is a powerful tool. DaveGBx 15:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

It is very sad how these people refuse to let themselves be enlightened by reading the Bible. I'm not sure where this hatred and animosity for a book that has been nothing but beneficial to the world comes from. I only hope it is a passing phase. AngusT 10:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Some would argue the point that the Bible has "been nothing but beneficial to the world." Throughout history it has been used as a means to justify atrocious action. Some examples are Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre or the notoriously bloody Crusades. I realize these events are the actions of individuals who distort the Bibles meaning and intent but they do serve as examples of how the Bible has been used in a negative way.

I've got to say, this is literally my favorite website in the world! This like the only bible-thumping online-community/denial generator that actually backs up what they say with the truth, and not the liberal "truth", that's shoved down our throats from birth, but true, conservative half-truths. The only truth you need.

Wow, what brilliant sarcasm! You might break the record for the highest score yet on our closedmindedness test. Please give it a try.--Andy Schlafly 20:31, 14 December 2009 (EST)

"Do you believe evolution must have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.

\--Linkmeup2003 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)== The most logical book ever written ==

My candidate would something like Euclid's Elements \- but certainly not the Bible as

1. the Bible includes miracles, i.e., happenings which are remarkable as they defy logic and
2. an almighty God certainly is not bound by our understanding of logic

FrankC aka ComedyFan 16:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Maybe you should read our essay, Essay:Quantifying Order. JacobB 16:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)

The words logic or logical don't appear even once in that essay, it seems to be about order.... FrankC aka ComedyFan 17:00, 14 December 2009 (EST)

The essay points out how there is nothing illogical about miracles, and you haven't provided anything illogical about them. Miracles reflect greater order in a world plagued by disorder. "Signs" is the better translation of the term for miracles ... signs of the greater underlying order.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. What's logical about this? It's a surprising event, a miracle or a sign, at least something out-of-order happening... FrankC aka ComedyFan 17:35, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Logic can be surprising, as in the Monty Hall three-door paradox or the Coase Theorem. But there's nothing illogical about God projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created. I think you mean to say it is "out of the ordinary." It is NOT illogical.--Andy Schlafly 17:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Well put, Andy. From my experience it seems like many people only read brief passages from the Bible and don't fully understand them, which is why they may think it's "illogical." But a careful study of the full meaning of the scriptures leads one to realize that it is indeed the most logical book ever written. To all those trying to argue against the Bible here - I urge you to spend a bit more time meticulously studying its contents, and perhaps you will be enlightened. God bless, --FatherJoseph 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created sounds as logical as visiting Leda as a swan. It doesn't become more logical by just repeating the statement! Conservapedia's article on Logic states:
Logic is also used extensively in theology, and especially the study of the Bible, which, due to its divine inspiration, is very logical.
IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
FrankC aka ComedyFan 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
@FrankC: Here you are pretending to have knowledge of logic while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no idea what logic is whatsoever. How can I make such a bold claim? Here's why: "sounds as logical as visiting Leda as a swan." There are three classical Laws of Logic; the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of the Excluded Middle. None of those laws are violated if I were to jump up in the air right now and fly around like Superman. That would be violating natural laws but not logic. Likewise, none of the Laws of Logic were ever broken by God. Here's a hint why:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
The greek term for "word" is Logos which means Logic. I hope you actually take a class on critical reasoning soon. We can't have pseudo-intellectuals like you clogging up the "tubes" of the internet.--Linkmeup2003 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)
It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. DaveGBx 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. DaveGBx 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: Debate: Is the Bible logical? conservative 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I've also written an essay on this topic, and I welcome any discussion on the talk page. Eoinc 07:59, 16 December 2009 (EST)