Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

White-Black hybrids

White-Black hybrids usually show strange characteristics, the average intelligence of the first generation of hybrids has, in fact, a much higher rate than the one of pure Negroes, although not as high as the White rate. The main characteristic is a tough attitude to expose violent behavior, mixed race hybrids are in fact one of the most violent races on Earth.

this is missing an entry about blipsters

i didn't know that lord byron was a nazi hero???

you'd think that a genetically crippled gay guy would not exactly be their main dude

Hitler continues to be a controversial figure, hated by many. However some have referred to Hitler's legacy in neutral or favourable terms. Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Louis Farrakhan has referred to him as a "very great man". Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.
In the United States, George Lincoln Rockwell revived Hitler’s movement by forming the American Nazi Party. Later other National Socialist parties began to form around the world.
In the United States however, similar to any "defeated" enemy, he is painted as a strictly evil figure, consumed with murder and hatred for Jews, and nothing else.

Racism is the realization, recognition and knowledge that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.[1] The colloquial meaning of racism is quite different from the natural and realist meaning of the term. The idea of superiority of some races is called racialism. Racial prejudice or dislike or hostility towards other races is called volkenhass.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_Negroids

List of famous Negroids
From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(edit) List

* Martin Luther King
* Barack Obama
* Nelson Mandela
* Kofi Annan
* Wallace Fard Muhammad
* Noble Drew Ali
* Hulon Mitchell Jr.
* Elijah Muhammad

* French football team.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

this list is unbelievable

Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[149] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[151] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[152] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer," which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.

^^ man does this PISS ME OFF. if only there was some way of amending... oh.

The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[83]

# Wikpedia's entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.[84] But Wikipedia's entry on conservative Vice President Dick Cheney prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.[85]

conservapedia MUST be a strawman pisstake, it MUST be

Wikipedia falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."[6] In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's cite to a New York Times article for support actually criticizes Wikipedia because it "does dwell on the idea that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"[7]

# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"[100] How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!

# Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union [11]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.

# Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

xp

# Mathematicians on Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.[40]

Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."[103] "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.

About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[129] But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[130] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[131]

Mathematicians on Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.

^^^ Mathematical conservatism (Intuitionism, etc.) Note that 99.99% of all published mathematics today relies on the Axiom of Choice.

Keep posting this stuff here. Stuff may change.

Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".[70] The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.[71] Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.

Conservapedia is oddly selective too. For instance, there is no entry on Sophie Garry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_pG0R2QCE

when Schlafly tries to argue statistics, the laffs come fast and furious:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

Conservapedia is not limited to liberal medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--Aschlafly 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

(f'instance)

ah, on my first visit I got tonnes of laffs, then it became uncomfortable, but now I'm back to the laffs.

Specifically, modern feminists tend to:

* believe that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that all inequality is the result of men oppressing women[4]
* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
* prefer shirking traditional gender activities, like baking [5]
* support affirmative action for women
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewife,[6] and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[7][8]
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* flat-out refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying[9]

telling it how it is.

when Schlafly tries to argue statistics, the laffs come fast and furious:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

-- J0hn D., Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:27 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

this is the best thing ive read all week - dude gets thoroughly schooled by other conservatives

btw thats andy schlafly not phyllis

It ends on a wonderfully strange note:

----

Norwegian actress and porn star

--

If by "hollywood" you also include Norwegian actresses then you must also include all actresses from all of Europe at bare minimum and probably from all over the world. No offence Andy, but this page is ridiculous and I'm surprised you can't see that.

dude gets thoroughly schooled by other conservatives

i dunno, unless yr definition of 'thoroughly schooled' is to ignore every single obvious, transparent, and well-argued criticism of your argument, and to continue to repeat your asinine points and questions in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence.

motivation and thought processes of guys like this are totally beyond me.

seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines

if only we had sigfiles

i mean thoroughly schooled in that they dissect his argument & refute it on every level - you could include it in textbooks under practical application of the scientific method

yeah that is the beauty of that page - the guys arguing against him are just cold-blooded facts-only-please dudes and it's like a thorough unmasking of his his pretending-to-be-interested-in-statistics stance

Here's where I ended up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst

the lenski affair (and associated talk pages) are quality pwnage too. second letter from lenski is a gem.

*poof*

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

Honk If You Love Fred Durst

Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others like objects rather than the people they are. Although some people have argued that "erotica" is okay, in the history of erotic literature it is rare to find any depiction of normal marital relations. Everything is a perversion of one sort or another, as if the authors had combed through the Old Testament prohibitions and chosen to depict each one.

amazing how he just uses 'liberal' to try and smear anyone who disagrees with him on anything... i mean does he really think it makes any sense to call committed conservapedia editors liberals??

i mean, not really amazing from a guy who started conservapedia. or even interesting. just uh... worthy of note?

There's never been racial or gender restrictions on becoming president.--Aschlafly 22:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Did that mean that before the American Civil War slaves were free to change career paths, or even run for President? Interesting.Pluto 19:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Pluto, if you were taught in public school then this may surprise you, but before the Civil War there were many blacks who were not slaves and, of course, blacks have always met the constitutional qualifications to be president.--Aschlafly 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in part, ruled that slaves and their descendants, regardless of whether descendants were slaves or not, were not and could never be "citizens" of the United States. Therefore, they were ineligible under Article Two, which states that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen. Blacks weren't and could never be citizens according to Dred Scott v. Sandford, and therefore did NOT meet the constitutional qualifications for president. --Jareddr 19:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

^True. Also, there were free states that excluded blacks from serving on juries and skilled occupations far below the level of President. Illinois and Indiana had laws banning blacks from their states entirely. Only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote.

Also, 95% of blacks lived in the South, mostly as slaves.Pluto 20:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr has a unique interpretation of the significance of the Dred Scott decision, which of course had nothing to do with qualifications for president. And of course it said nothing about gender.--Aschlafly 21:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I think you should admit you were wrong here. No big deal I suppose but I don't think it is credible to argue Blacks always had the right to become president. Even if you are technically correct that there was no specific positive disqualification on their being president, this may be because there was no attempt by any black people to become president as the legal outcome of such an attempt was obvious until after the civil war.--DamianJohn 21:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't wish to offend, but Jareddr's "interpretation" of Dred Scott is very, very, very very far from unique. Only an American citizen can become President, and the Dred Scott decision held that no black American was a citizen. Roger Taney's decision said that blacks have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."Pluto 22:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

What happened to your false claim about gender? As to race, Dred Scott did not "hold" what you say. Rather, that was a non-binding portion of the opinion, which was widely criticized and ignored.--Aschlafly 23:25, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

As to gender, women couldn't vote until the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Dred Scott was unpopular with Republicans, but was popular with Northern Democrats, Southerners and the border states.Pluto 23:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Right about gender, but I thought you originally said women could not become president. That's false.

As to Dred Scott, you're probably right that it was supported by the Democratic Party for that brief period of 1857 through 1865. Good thing the Republican Party was soon running the show, right?--Aschlafly 08:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, so according to your version of American History, blacks were citizens recognized by the government from the signing of the Constitution right through the signing of the Fourteenth Amendment? Because I'd love to see some citations that state that blacks were considered citizens during that time. --Jareddr 09:49, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps this "information" regarding their citizenship could be placed on CP someplace. I'd be interested to see the reactions of other readers finding out blacks were citizens before the Civil War. --Jareddr 09:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I am glad sanity has prevailed and you no longer seem to be asserting that Blacks could always be president of the USA. However if I read you right you seem to be clinging to the idea that women were always eligible for the presidency. I repeat my statement for women, if they couldn't vote, how on earth could they run for public office?--DamianJohn 10:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is flawed. It's amazing the lengths some go to defend a falsehood. There has never been a racial or gender-based limitation for the presidency. Don't accept the truth if you insist, but I'm not going to allow repetition of falsehoods on my talk page. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Is there a citizenship requirement for presidency? Yes. So the question becomes, Aschlafly, were blacks considered full-fledged natural-born citizens before the Civil War? --Jareddr 10:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

In Andy's defense on this, "the descendants of slaves" and "black Americans" are not perfectly contiguous populations. A little research will show that there were black colonists who came as free citizens originally (or, in some cases, as indentured servants.) Dred Scott, therefore, does not speak directly to the question of whether an African-American can be President, regardless of whether it was binding or not. --Benp 11:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Technically, there is no law that would favor Obama over McCain either. I thought the issue there was some non-legal alleged bias. When large groups of people couldn't vote, that points to a bias. Can a bias that obvious be found against white male Presidential candidates? Also, Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, slave or free.

And yes, it is a good thing the Republicans fought against a law as bad as Dred Scott. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, as well as the fact that Democrats supported Dred Scott.Pluto 11:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

At the moment, I'm looking specifically at the debate over whether or not it was technically historically possible for a black man to run for President; the larger issue is a debate into which I don't care to enter at this time. As far as the assertion that Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, I'd have to ask for a citation on that; having reviewed the text of the decision, what I found was that it applied specifically and explicitly to slaves and their descendants. Thus, you would be correct in asserting that slaves could not run for President; Andy would be correct in asserting that there was no law prohibiting someone from running for President simply because he was black. --Benp 11:57, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Having read the decision as well, it seems that they were extending it to all blacks, as opposed to just slaves. For instance, "And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs's Tenn.Reports, 331.", "in no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights,"

"The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790, and confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free white persons."

"Neither was it used with any reference to the African race imported into or born in this country; because Congress had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them."

And finally, "Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States."

All these sections seem to refer to those of color, free or slaves, as separate and not considered citizens in the Dred Scott decision. --Jareddr 15:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, it's better not to use words like "rebut" or "refute" in a way that implies that a liberal is correct and a conservative is wrong, when the matter is in dispute. Maybe Wikipedia would allow that, but not us. Why not say "disagree" or "argue" instead? --Ed Poor Talk 07:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The conservapedia article over at wikipedia was recently promoted to good status or GA. The GA critera include: well written, well sourced, neutral, stable and pictures where appropriate. Does conservapedia have such a system yet that reviews article quality? Would it be worth starting something perhaps? Dotherightthing 01:41, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

It speaks volumes about wikipedia that such a system is neccessary, and why we don't have that here. Our articles have the qualities listed (although from a conservative rather than 'npov' standpoint), and are concise and educational to boot. However, I doubt whether the wp article on Conservapedia matches up to these high standards; more likely it is riven through with Liberal deceit. Bugler 06:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh wow that Hollywood breast cancer talk page is amazing. Schafly is repeatly asked the most simple thing: where'd you get your data from? And he completely ignores the question and accuses people of liberal bias.

And he used Belinda Emmett as an example of a Hollywood breast cancer victim. She's Australian. Good grief. I mean I see what he's trying to prove: "the hollywood lifestyle is evil, look it gives women cancer!"

The insanity makes my brain hurt, has he always been like this?

Here's another scary page that I found after looking through the "mystery" link on the hollywood cancer page:

Do sports affect sexual preference?

And looking at the "talk" page from the above link, it's the same guy making the same arguments getting pwned again

The insanity makes my brain hurt, has he always been like this?

Pretty much. His mom was around during the Reagan years. She gets made fun of in the occasional Bloom County cartoon.

great zing, or the greatest zing?

"It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live."