Misplaced Pages

Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 15

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Conservapedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 30 March 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Conservapedia.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:51, 30 March 2010 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Conservapedia.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Blatant lies and talk page deletion

There was a lengthy section of this talk page called "blatant lies," and now it is gone. Misplaced Pages policy states quite clearly NOT to delete any content on the talk pages. To whoever vandalized the talk page (you know who you are), don't ever do that again. Anyway, I can't remember most of what was on this section, but what I said was that in Conservapedia's two-sentence article on Rosa Luxemburg, they said she was a terrorist. This is completely untrue. A terrorist is someone who uses fear and violence against civilians to orchestrate a response from the government or the civilians themselves. Rosa Luxemburg called herself a revolutionary, and a revolutionary is someone who organizes a mass movement of civilians to replace the government. Commissarusa (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

First, new discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. I took the liberty of moving this post for that reason. Second, actually,[REDACTED] policy states that anything posted on the talk page that doesn't involve improvement of the article may be removed without question. Technically, I could have just deleted your comment instead of responding to it. Third, I didn't look in the article to see what you are talking about, but if Conservapedia calls someone a terrorist, then we report that conservapedia calls someone a terrorist. It is possible to then elaborate on exactly why said person is not actually a terrorist, but to say that conservapedia doesn't call her a terrorist when they actually do would be a falsehood.Farsight001 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

The article states, "the articles about conservative politicians, such as Republican former US president Ronald Reagan, Joseph McCarthy, and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have been observed as praising their respective subjects. " Citations are Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "A conservative's answer to Misplaced Pages". Los Angeles Times. and Read, Brock (March 2, 2007) "A Misplaced Pages for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education. The Brock article is a dead link but here is the original cite. Neither article mentions Joseph Mccarthy. nobs (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think COI guidelines prohibit you from fixing dead links and making other non-controversial edits. I fixed the url and removed McCarthy. Rees11 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet Encyclopedia Project

Is Conservapedia still just an ancyclopedia project, has it not moved on to be more of a political/ideological blog? KenDenier (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says that, then please put it in the article. If not, don't. if you're just wondering aloud, then please remember this talk page is not a forum. And denying Ken is futile, btw. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 15 Add topic