Wikipedia kills "Culture of Death" entry

conservapedia 2.jpgUPDATE, 7:30p: I just spoke with Andy Schlafly, who started Conservapedia to counter the liberal spin at Wikipedia. He explained how and why "Culture of Death" was offed:

Wikipedia is run by a mobocracy of liberals who tend pro-abortion, pro-atheism, and pro-socialism. That liberal mob distorts entries and deletes what they don't like. "Culture of Death" is something liberals don't want to admit to.

Someone will nominate an entry for deletion. It will go into a discussion period on a discussion page. The liberal mob will dominate the discussion, unrestrained by any meaningful principles. Then someone who has special status on Wiki, an administator, will delete the entry, and that is how they censor the truth. It is difficult to find a trace of how it happened, and the person who deleted does not have to explain his or her reasoning. The deletion battle has raged again and again with truth telling entries.

Conservapedia has an entry with 156 examples of Wiki bias.

Astute reader Tom R. noticed Wikipedia deleted "Culture of Death" April 17 (click to enlarge):

culture of death slide 1.JPG

At this point "Culture of Life" is still up on Wiki, and "Culture of Death" is still available on Wiktionary. Here's what "Culture of Death" looked like on Wikipedia when it was created in April 2005 (click to enlarge)...

Culture of death slide 2.JPG

By May the term had been gutted with the reference to "abortion" deleted (click to enlarge):

culture of death 2.jpg

By 2006 the page was blank. Emailed Tom:

I used the "wayback machine" on

An archive capture of the page from 2006 shows a blank page. The archive is supposed to capture everything open access on the net every 6 to 12 months. I'll bet "Culture of Death" has been opening and closing in one of the never ending Wiki battles, which is why it has never been caught by the wayback machine since 2006.

I've asked the editor who deleted "Culture of Death" for his or her rationale. We'll see.


This is why I stopped using Wikipedia. It should really be called Liberal-pedia. If you look at any political figure or controversial issue, some hard left liberal is in charge of the page. Look at the "talk" tab for some clue as to the conservatives fighting to get some semblance of truth onto the page, and the liberal "owner" deleting and not allowing any of their changes.

Go to
for a real, honest, trustworthy online encyclopedia.

Posted by: Use Conservapedia at April 20, 2009 6:05 PM

Wikipedia editor kills Culture of Death Article

Given what happened to John Ziegler at the USC School of Journalism, it appears we're entering the Irony Age.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 20, 2009 6:05 PM

The "official" reason given is here:

Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; or categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Posted by: Tim at April 20, 2009 6:42 PM

According to the admin, he deleted it because that page was a redirect to, which was deleted by an admin named "Dominic" because the term had been moved to another wiki project - I assume the wiki dictionary.

Not sure why there cannot be a dictionary and wikipedia entry for Culture of Death though.

Posted by: Paul at April 20, 2009 6:45 PM

Chris, I'm stealing your line, what a hoot!

Paul, I don't know anything about Wiki, but I do know terms are case sensitive. You link to "Culture of death." I was talking about "Culture of Death." And there is nothing for "culture of death."

Just spoke to Andy Schlafly, who heads Conservapedia, Wikipedia's alternative, and I'll be updating my post with his thoughts.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 20, 2009 6:58 PM

mobocracy - you mean like the fake riots that were staged in florida to shut down voting in 2000?

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at April 20, 2009 7:43 PM

I'm delighted to know about Conservapedia.

Posted by: Joanne at April 20, 2009 8:10 PM

"Wikipedia is run by a mobocracy of liberals who tend pro-abortion, pro-atheism, and pro-socialism. That liberal mob distorts entries and deletes what they don't like."

That explains it. They're the same as the MSM.

Posted by: Jasper at April 20, 2009 9:10 PM

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at April 20, 2009 7:43 PM

mobocracy - you mean like the fake riots that were staged in florida to shut down voting in 2000?


Thanks, ylt.

A republican riot. Now that is an oxymoron.

I thought republicans were just a bunch of mealy mouthed wimps. Some body must have spiked their malt o meal with steroids and meth.

Sounds eerily reminiscent of the democrat feminista congress babes beating on the doors of the United States Senate when the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings were in progress.

The kinder gentler gender, a breath of fresh air to the smoke filled back rooms; interns, male or female, optional

Do you know what really cost Gore Florida?

The democrats would pick up their senior citizen voters on election day and drive them to the polling places.

They would provide them with preprinted slate of democrat candidates for whom they were supposed to cast theri votes.

But some democrat made a mistake and the number that was supposed to be assigned to Gore was actually the number that was assigned to Buchanan.

Remember Buchanan received more votes than the exit polling data indicated.

But there was no coincidental discrepancy in the votes cast for Bush. The unexplained votes for Buchanan were actually democrat votes that should have gone for Gore.

Irony of ironies.

This confused the senior citizens and they either voted for Buchanan or they cast no vote for president. This was the difference in the election.

If the mail in ballots from the military had not been deliberately delayed by the Clinton administration and as a result not counted, Florida would not have been close enough for Gore to steal.

I have been around the rent a mobs of the left. I have seen and experienced their behaviors and their tactics.

The 'Brooks Brothers' were Pee Wee Hermans in comparison.

If you push em hard enough, even stuffy conservative republicans will fight back.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 20, 2009 9:28 PM

I am an editor on Conservapedia and I used to regularly edit Wikipedia. I got so disgusted at the liberals there using their numbers to subvert the rules (e.g. one person cannot revert an edit more than three times a day, but several people can almost indefinitely defend an edit) and gang up against any hint of balance or factual information added by a conservative that flies in the face of their agenda and their version of reality that they want displayed on Wikipedia. These liberals are particularly active in articles about evolution, politics, and religion. Many of the same usernames pop up time after time.

Posted by: Jinx McHue at April 20, 2009 10:02 PM

Jinx, you're just angry that your anatomically-minded edits to the "The Valley of Horses" article creeped everybody out.

Posted by: Harold at April 20, 2009 10:54 PM

You're off base on this one. The deletion was a housekeeping matter - no content has been lost at all. The full history of the article has been moved, en bloc, to Wiktionary - see here to access it.

Posted by: Orpheus at April 20, 2009 11:28 PM

QFT Harold. Anyone interested should look for a certain wiki with rational in the title to see the truth behind Jinx.

Posted by: Jamal at April 20, 2009 11:30 PM

Most of Conservapedia is actually the work of people parodying "conservative" positions on various topics.

See their articles on Evolution, Atheism, or Barack Obama, for examples.

Posted by: KevinJ at April 21, 2009 12:04 AM

That's odd. There I was thinking it was conservatives who were all for capital punishment. Surely if anything qualifies as encouraging a "culture of death", it's killing our unwanted...

Silly me.

Posted by: Chris at April 21, 2009 12:53 AM

Chris, yes silly you. Obviously you haven't been around this site much.

Posted by: Lauren at April 21, 2009 1:00 AM

"Culture of Death" that the one that supports the death penalty, and was screaming to turn the entire mideast into a vast plain of radioactive glass after 9/11? The one that owns most of the handguns to stave off the inevitable Canadian invasion? The one that will fight to the finish to keep the Undeserving Poor from getting any sort of medical care that doesn't involve either emergency rooms or beggaring their whole families?

Or is that the Culture of Life? I always get those two confused for some reason.


And by all means, go help out Conservapedia. They've banned so many contributors that they need all the help they can get.

Posted by: Gulik at April 21, 2009 3:32 AM

I see the Wikis have descended. They're giving us an object lesson on how they operate. Recall the topic is what possible reason could Wiki have to delete "Culture of Death." There is no objective reason.

Lauren, lol!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 21, 2009 5:34 AM

Jill, take a look at this link where your pal Andy argues that Obama is a crypto-Muslim because he isn't seen dancing very often. Is this guy really somebody you want helping you with your cause? He's an absolute embarrassment to any movement he purports to be a part of, and his "encyclopedia" is really just a blog where he teaches his poor homeschool students bunk history. Lol indeed!

Posted by: Harold at April 21, 2009 7:32 AM

Radical liberals act in groups, and it looks like they have decided to favor us with their pack today. Yet another reason to disdain any quote from Wiki.....

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at April 21, 2009 8:26 AM

This is hilarious. If you try to discuss anything at Conservapedia you get banned under Andy's 90/10 rule. Articles that Andy doesn't like are deleted without discussion. Mentioning 'rival' site A Storehouse of Knowledge is a banning offence. And as for Andy's attempts at education, go and see his marking 'system'. It is worse than useless.

Posted by: Quercus at April 21, 2009 9:11 AM

Just FYI, Harold (and possibly Quercus) is a member of another wiki that is obsessed with Conservapedia and its members. About 90% of the material on this wiki (which I shall not name) is devoted to their obsession. The wiki also encourages vandalism of Conservapedia, impersonation of Conservapedia editors and their IPs, harassment of Conservapedia editors, and other actions of questionable legality. The fact that Harold tracked me down here to attack me just proves how pathetically obsessed they are. Expect more comments like that. Delete them as necessary.

Posted by: Jinx McHue at April 21, 2009 9:28 AM

Typical Conservapedia reaction there Jinx old chap, if you don't like something then delete it or ban the author.

Posted by: Quercus at April 21, 2009 10:16 AM

Cultural Marxism. If it doesn't appeal to the left and PC language, it gets censored.

Posted by: xppc at April 21, 2009 10:27 AM

For prolifers and people how care about knowledge in general…the real problem is this: first and foremost the "Culture of death" entry on wiki (or wiktionary) has been completely scrubbed of any reference to abortion or euthanasia. This is sad because they are central to this whole concept in our current culture. And that it does not link with the "Culture of life" wiki page.

By the way, Consertivipedia does not have a "Culture of death" entry either (at least not as of April 20th.)

Posted by: Tom R. at April 21, 2009 10:40 AM

Ah, yes. Conservapedia is not about censoring dissent or deleting uncomfortable facts. The trick, of course, in in using your labels correctly, the way George Bush said "we don't torture" because he had a lawyer write him a letter that redefined what "torture" meant, no matter what average people thought.

On Conservapedia "Truth" is whatever Andrew Schlafly considers truth - anything else, no matter how well backed up by credible sources, is "liberal claptrap" and can be removed accordingly. When you point out this hypocrisy too often or too clearly, they apply their "90/10" rule to block and silence even respectful criticism rather than acknowledge and respond to it in good faith.

If you don't conform to Mr. Schlafly's version of groupthink, you will be banned for whatever reason the Conservapedia leadership wants to apply. In my case, it was for having an account at a disfavored website even though Conservapedia has a Commandment prohibiting discrimination against editors for belonging to other sites. I have nothing against conservatism, but I detest hypocrites who complain about "censorship of truth" on Wikipedia, yet routinely do the same or worse on Conservapedia by relabeling the truths they don't like as "claptrap". Truth is truth, and honest men should defend their views with honestly debate instead of a revert-and-block button.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 10:47 AM


Thankfully, I see now, that doing a “culture of death” search from the main page on Wikipedia now links to a sub-section of the “Culture of life” page. Different from what was there before but adequate, I suppose, for Wikipedia. So, there must be an angel somewhere.

Thanks to you Jill for providing this forum.

Posted by: Tom R. at April 21, 2009 11:25 AM

The "TK" who responded to my post proves my assertions with 100% accuracy. It is someone from the wiki I mentioned who is impersonating an administrator from Conservapedia. Also, DinsdaleP was permablocked from Conservapedia for vandalism.

Posted by: Jinx McHue at April 21, 2009 11:30 AM

I'm delighted to see that you are spreading the word about Conservapedia. The Liberals and atheists have had it their own way for far too long. Now God and the Paople are speaking.

Posted by: Bugler at April 21, 2009 11:40 AM

Actually Jinx, I was blocked for being "a member of a vandal site" even though the person who blocked me admitted that I never committed vandalism on CP (or anywhere else for that matter). I was guilty by association, not for doing anything. Nice try at distorting the truth, though. Very Conservapedian of you.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 11:41 AM

Tell you what, Jinx. Post the link here to evidence of me vandalizing on Conservapedia and I'll publicly apologize to everyone on this forum. If you can't, I'd expect an equally public apology from you on this forum in return.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 11:45 AM

Anyone interested in the homeschool class programs provided by Mr.Schlafly can read this very well documented article about his educational practice:

Posted by: A Conservative Homeschooler at April 21, 2009 12:18 PM

haha...Jinx just got pwned by Dinsdale.

Posted by: neveruse513 at April 21, 2009 12:42 PM

Jill, I'm a Wikipedia admin, and I'm interested in helping the articles in question to represent a balanced point-of-view.

The "culture of death" article had, over time, become a mere dictionary definition, and so it was moved to Wiktionary. The article on Wikipedia became a redirect to the "culture of life" article.

If you feel (or anyone else here feels) that "culture of death" is a concept distinct from simply being a negation of "culture of life", and deserves its own article, then I will help you make this happen. Please post a comment to my Wikipedia Talk page. Help making the "culture of life" article explain the "culture of death" idea in more detail would also be appreciated.

I do feel that the "culture of life" article needs more work and more references, especially from the conservative viewpoint. I will help you with this also. Let me know if you feel you're having trouble making it fairly represent the facts.

I am not pro-abortion, pro-socialism, or liberal, but yes, I am an atheist. I don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox; I'm confident that the principles in which I believe can hold their own when presented fairly and accurately, without needing me to add bias.

Posted by: Brian Kendig at April 21, 2009 2:06 PM

Cease your deceitful utterances of "tolerance" and "fairness", filthy Wikipedian! You're ruining the sweet, self-righteous glow of persecution we're all happily basking in here!

Posted by: Gulik at April 21, 2009 2:39 PM

The probability of Jill accepting your offer is nearly zero Brian.

Posted by: Quercus at April 21, 2009 2:44 PM

Four hours later, the silence from Jinx McHue is deafening.

This is typical behavior for Conservapedia editors who follow Andrew Schlafly's example of making borderline-libelous statements in support of his conservative groupthink, then quietly slinking away when asked to back those statements up.

Schlafly, who teaches American History and World History to home-schooled students does this himself. Here's an example where, instead of simply admitting that Vikings had settlements in North America prior to Columbus arriving in 1492, he accuses the archeologists who discovered the evidence in Newfoundland of fraud:

"So what is the proof? A few artifacts that anyone could have planted for amusement or financial reward? The artifact business is rife with fraud, with many proven examples of wrongdoing in analogous cases."

So Jill, I'd ask that you examine this for yourself, examine Schlafly-approved Conservapedia articles like the one on Barack Obama, and state whether you still consider Andrew Schlafly a credible spokesman for the conservative movement.

I'd also challenge you to read through the content of his World History and American History lectures on Conservapedia, particularly the grades & comments he awards for their homework, and state here whether or not you could honestly recommend him as a homeschool instructor of quality.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 3:05 PM


Perhaps why the culture of life page is not that well documented and the culture of death page got smaller over time (How did that happen??) is because it is widely considered a futile waste of time by many prolifers and even more so by conservatives. Sigh…I wish it were not so.

Please, tell me how any real work I do on Wikipedia will last. It would be worth the effort I put in to make it a fine, accurate, and balanced page. Wikipedia (and the world) would be better for it.

Posted by: Tom R. at April 21, 2009 3:22 PM

Jinx, let's be frank- Conservapedia is not a viable alternative to Wikipedia. While WP has a dedicated base of thousands of editors and possibly tens of thousands of "lurkers", all the CP has is about two dozen people with any commitment at all to the project, about which probably a third or more are parodists or deep cover socks. And what's MOAR, most of them are, to say in the ABSOLUTE nicest way, a bit strange.

Aschlafly-Makes ridiculous, unfounded claims, some borderline libelous, misogynist, and bullying

conservative: Spews deranged "Genltlemen" messages across the site, photoshopps together Darwin and Hitler, and makes 2000 edits to the article on Homosexuality.

TK- A bullying troll who has already been banned once, and is only allowed to return because of Andy's (Aschlafly) shortsightedness. I think that this would become blatantly obvious when he banned you. You posted triumphantly that this would be his downfall, yet it was YOU that had his rights stripped, and demoted to the rank of lowly editor.

Ed Poor- Flaming Anti-Semite with an overinflated sense of self-importance, often behaves in a manner that can only be described as "creepy Uncle Ed"

And then of course, there's you. A perfect, model Christian, raising a stable Nuclear Family. Of course, they don't know about your profane rants on the-site-that-must-not-be-named, bully behavior, vandalism, and other, less "family friendly" things (I reference your vandalism of Jinx Bating). You know, for someone that left W.P. at least partly because of it's "moral degeneracy", you really are a hypocrite, Jinx.

Posted by: The Emperor at April 21, 2009 6:30 PM

The Emperor, your rant above is silly. I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone like you. If you have an open mind, Conservapedia would welcome you; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you. I repeat you've been deluded by the liberal media. My point is confirmed and you've provided nothing meaningful to rebut it, but you have free will to do as you like, including even insisting that 2+2=5.

Posted by: Andrew Schlafly at April 21, 2009 7:09 PM

The above post is not by me.

I shall be contacting the FBI to have the impersonator prosecuted.


Posted by: Andrew Schllafly at April 21, 2009 8:02 PM

Oh, this *is* good. Trolls and Poes and Conservatives -- oh, my!

Posted by: co at April 21, 2009 8:07 PM

Back on topic, you seem to be trying to enter an alliance with Aschlafly, known to us at RationalWiki as Assfly. Believe me, you do NOT want Conservapedia as an ally. Read RationalWiki. They claim to be against censorship, page deletion, etc. Well, our irony meters go off when they talk about that, because THEY ARE THE MOST FASCIST SITE OUT THERE!

Posted by: The Resistor at April 21, 2009 8:09 PM

By the way, nice assfly imitation.

Posted by: The Resistor at April 21, 2009 8:10 PM

Yet another comment: what took you so long? The page was deleted three years ago.

Posted by: The Resistor at April 21, 2009 8:14 PM

Ignoring largely trolling comments above, I note the lack of posts by Jinx. What's the matter Jinxy Baby? Too scared to come out of your "intellectual rabbit hole"?

Posted by: The Emperor at April 21, 2009 8:34 PM

I see I have been impersonated by the members of the vandal site. The Emperor, DinsdaleP (AKA SpinyNorman), Gulik are all Admins at a site that the Times said was a vandal board. That is most telling, and no more needs to be said.

If someone claims not to be a vandal, look around at where they are, and who the hang out with. If those people are mostly gangsters or vandals, then they are lying. An honest person wouldn't consort or offer any support to such sociopaths.

It always brings a smile to my face that the liberal trolls from a well-known (and designated so by the Los Angeles Times, no less!) vandal site never get that their mechanizations only serve to prove to the world that liberals are deceitful. If there were any honest liberals, with any personal integrity whatsoever, they would be cleaning their own house and outing those who are giving them a bad name. The fact that the are not doing so, shows that the absurd postulation that liberals are as honest, and have just as much integrity as conservatives, is just that; ridiculous.

Jinx is not a vandal, and is a valued contributor to CP.

Posted by: TK at April 21, 2009 8:55 PM

TK, I find very amusing that you yourself have had deep ties with what you call a vandal site and have also been banned from conservapedia and had your Admin powers stripped for trying to forment a vandal attack on Conservapedia. Your hippocrisy know's no bound sir.

Posted by: Ace McWicked at April 21, 2009 8:59 PM

Like most of your ilk, "Ace" you absolutely know nothing about that situation. If someone told you those were the circumstances, they lied to you, or you simply lie with them.

I joined that site to prevent others from impersonating me, like they did here. Only too late did I find out that the disreputable people running the place knew how to access the account and post as if from other people, screen shot it, and delete the posts. Your so-called website specializes in forgery and impersonation, of which you all seem very proud. Enough said.

Why don't you adolescents find some vandal chat room to play in, and leave this nice lady alone? I have suggested to her, because you kids have "found" this place, that she disable non-registered and confirmed posting. Many sites have had to do that once you and your fellow radical leftists show up. Pity.

Posted by: TK at April 21, 2009 9:14 PM

TK your posturing is ridiculously hypocritical.

You are the person that wanted adminship when RationalWiki first formed on the grounds that previous and offsite offences did not count, also known as the Colin Doctrine.

You also look like a hypocrite because you have an account on RationalWiki and yet deleted Jinxmchue's on Conservapedia because you believed he had one.

The website has never endorsed vandalism and several high ranking members have expressed there distaste for some of the content such as the parodist guide to villainy, however we are not a dictatorship and if the majority of the members wants something that is the way it goes. I am not going to follow in your path and purge members form the site because I disagree with there offsite behaviour and what is nonvandalistic additions to RationalWiki.

You can pretend to have the moral highground all you like but even a quick glance over your history is telling.

Posted by: π at April 21, 2009 9:17 PM

Nice to see you up to your old trick of personal emails to manipulate the situation and trying lock editing down to cut the flow of free speech.

Posted by: π at April 21, 2009 9:19 PM

Well, I can see that the last post from TK is from the real person and not an impersonator. True to form, though, he left out a few details when claiming that "no more needs to be said".

TK has been a documented member of the same site that is being referred to obliquely, RationalWiki, but prefers to deny it. He also failed to mention that just about anyone who's a member of RationalWiki for any length of time is given Administrative rights - it's a standard practice, not a reward for condoning or participating in vandalism. As a member of a project that condemns deceit, TK is ironically quite willing to employ deceit by omission when it suits him.

As for the character of this person, when I questioned TK about his banning of me from Conservapedia, the emails I received were laced with personal insults and profanity that I will not repeat here, and despite my sincere effort to help correct what he considered to be a problem on RationalWiki, he continues to label me a vandal without any evidence. One of us shows honesty and goodwill, the other maliciousness and "sociopathic" traits.

TK is also sidestepping the point I made to Jinx - I have never committed vandalism on Conservapedia and have spoken out against it on Rationalwiki. If they have proof of me vandalizing Conservapedia then they should produce it, otherwise an apology is due.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 9:23 PM

In the time it took me to write my last response I see that TK is calling for access to be cut off for this thread. I'll readily admit that there's been some immature and inappropriate posting done by some, but that's no reason to cut off the feedback from the ones keeping it civil.

Some of us prefer to avoid the insults and they-are-all-vandals-so-ignore-them rhetoric, and make straightforward points.

Ms. Stanek, all I ask is that you look further into the content Andrew Schlafly endorses on Conservapedia, and his approach to education that includes questionable academics like the example I provided above, his views that girls should receive easier, shorter exams than boys because of gender differences, and so on. If you choose to continue to endorse and promote him then you will at least be doing so from a more informed position, rather than just the reputation of the Schlafly name built by Phyllis Schlafly.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 9:34 PM

I'm afraid, DinsdaleP, that a request for proof from Conservapaedians is in vain. So far as I've seen (sc. "the Lenski affair" and any of multitudes of "Hollywood values" claims), the site's standards of proof are ridiculously poor.
I always appreciated your posts there, as they weren't inflammatory and seemed to sincerely want to face their silliness head-on. It's too bad you got the boot; you were probably one of their last hopes for any credibility.

Posted by: co at April 21, 2009 9:37 PM

Thanks, co. It's a shame that there are people who can't separate the concept of discussing and even debating different viewpoints with attacks on them.

I had always felt that people who truly believe in the correctness of their outlook would look forward discussing and defending it in a civil setting. Unfortunately, things didn't work out that way on Conservapedia, where groupthink has taken hold and dismissal of legitimate views as "claptrap" supersedes intellectual honesty.

That's why sites such as have sprung up out of disillusionment with Andrew Schlafly's execution of the Conservative Encyclopedia concept. Unless there's a fundamental change in policy at Conservapedia, I'm afraid that what once had potential will become something most conservatives will regard like an embarrassing relative - something connected to them that they'd rather not acknowledge all the same.

Posted by: DinsdaleP at April 21, 2009 9:51 PM

We at RW would like to apologise about the posts by The Resistor and The Emperor - we're not all like that. Now, back to your normal programming.

Posted by: DogP at April 21, 2009 10:16 PM

Thanks you DogP. You are quite correct.

Posted by: Ace McWicked at April 21, 2009 10:26 PM

Ms. Stanek,

In case you are still reading this thread, I would urge you to read the following links before you publicly support Conservapedia or Andy Schlafly.

In this assignment for an online class, Andy makes fun of children attending public school, painting them as petulant and ignorant. There are legitimate criticisms of public school, but making fun of the children is reprehensible. Please see "Part B."

In this discussion Andy promotes his opinion that the concept of black holes is something made up by liberals to sell magazines. It's fine to have a dissenting opinion on a widely held scientific view. In fact, that is how scientific progress has often been made, but this magazine sales business smacks of fringe conspiracy theory.

Finally, for some comedic color, I direct you to an essay at Conservapedia. Have you ever worn pants, Ms. Stanek? According to a senior administrator at Conservapedia, you might want to stop such sinful behavior!

I hope that by these examples you see that Conservapedia is not a good conservative alternative to Wikipedia. It is a farce. Furthermore, Andy Schlafly is not a good spokesman for the conservative movement. His activities make him a laughingstock, and I would urge people to not associate themselves with him.

Posted by: Harold at April 21, 2009 10:43 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, all you lying trolls. I'm sorry I have a meaningful life away from here, Conservapedia, your pathetic wiki and the internet in general. I'm sorry that I went to work and had to deal with taking care of a developmentally disabled adult who fell, broke their nose and had to go to the emergency room. I'm sorry my life is better and more fulfilling than yours. I'm sorry I don't have the time that you do to sit around on the computer all day as my worthless behind grows fatter on Mountain Dew, Doritos, pizza and Clark Bars. I'm sorry that my life does not revolve around you. I'm sorry that all this means you think in your pubescent little minds that you "pwned" me.

Please, please accept my deepest, most sincere apologies for all of the above.

Posted by: Jinx McHue at April 21, 2009 11:10 PM

Oh, look. Our first link to the wiki I mentioned. Notice that the cowards can't even make it a direct link and have to hide it behind a tinyurl link.

Posted by: Jinx McHue at April 21, 2009 11:11 PM

Apology accepted, Jinx.

Posted by: co at April 21, 2009 11:18 PM

"Jinx is not a vandal, and is a valued contributor to CP." I can see how!

Posted by: Arnold T. Pants at April 21, 2009 11:27 PM

Jinx, my behind is quite slim thank you very much. Secondly you owe DinsdaleP an apology. You know that he had never vandalised CP yet you stated he has. That, dear friend, is the type of Deceit that Andy and yourself so vocally rail against.

Posted by: Ace McWicked at April 21, 2009 11:30 PM

Here you go, Jinx: this link is about Andy Schlafly.

This link is about the person to whom I am replying. Be warned, much of the language he is quoted as using is incredibly foul.

Posted by: Galen at April 21, 2009 11:32 PM

What happened to the article on "culture of death" is a routine process, it was decided that it had little potential for anything more than a dictionary definition and so it was transwikied to Wikitionary where it can be viewed with almost precisely the same content as it had on Wikipedia. You can read LIBERAL BIAS out of that if you want, but believe me, such has happened to many liberal phrases as well.

As for Andrew Schlafly and his 156 examples of wiki bias.... honestly, Andrew Schlafly is the laughingstock of the internet.

Have you read his list? Take a look at #72, the claim that WP promotes suicide. The fact that a number of Wikipedia articles mention suicide (less that 0.01%) is not evidence that Wikipedia promotes suicide, such a claim is obviously absurd! Who would promote suicide? I know many conservatives really like to think that liberals are evil but really, why would anyone promote suicide? Its nonsensical and claims that people are doing it is silly.

Posted by: Icewedge at April 22, 2009 1:29 AM

I love it! Google "Icewedge". One of the most renowned and damaging Internet Terrorists/Vandals posting here, of all places, defending his vandal site, and supposedly talking about sense?

The vituperation and just plain mean spiritedness demonstrated above, along with the public outing of peoples names whom they don't like, based upon one public mention of it, shows what these people are about. It is intolerance of any POV they disagree with, and a penchant for disrupting any place that won't allow them to run rampant arguing without end the other POV is "wrong", so monopolizing the sites time, as to stop all other progress. That, of course, is their real intent.

Keep on posting, kids. Each and everyone you do, seeming "reasonable" in your own warped leftist minds, shows anyone of good will what you are about. Keep posting links as well! For every person who likes what they read on your wretched vandal wiki, 100 will be sickened because the entire wiki isn't about intellectual counter-argument, it is about vile character assassination of the most filthy kind, thinly veiled as humor of all those you dislike.

Yours is indeed the real face of today's radical left, today's militant and intolerant atheists. Show the people more of your true persona!

Posted by: TK at April 22, 2009 2:31 AM

That comment from the man who blocked the whole of Oxford University from editing Conservapedia. Wonderfully tolerant that TK.

Posted by: Quercus at April 22, 2009 3:14 AM

I like these comments. The ones insisting that rationalwiki is a site of vandals and trolls are the ones using the vilest language, while these 'vandals' and 'trolls' are the one being civil.

Seriously, just read the posts above mine. The ones from TK and Jinx are all personal attacks, hatred and bile. What happened to those Christian values?

Posted by: Gnol at April 22, 2009 3:24 AM

Ahh, another anonymous post from people who use endlessly changing identities, never revealing their affiliation, true agenda or even their real names. Yet you think it okay to use the real names of those you hate, slander them, libel them, make up stories about them out of whole cloth, so long as you are protected, not revealing your location, street address, phone number, as you have done to others.

I was the one impersonated here. I am the one attacked, with baseless and unprovable charges, supported only by self-serving forgeries. On the other hand, we have a vandal site anyone can visit, and pick a random page and see the seething hate and vituperation, the most vile personal attacks and slanders towards anyone who doesn't subscribe to their radical left/atheistic POV.

So, please, like I said, keep on posting. What exposes your real intent and intolerance is your own site. And that you cannot sweep under the rug, because in doing so your users will abandon you because they are attracted to hate and intolerance, they enjoy Internet Terrorism too much. Showcasing the very few who mouth pious words of tolerance and intellectual discussion does not hide what is there, and the actions 90% refuse to condemn with silly, devious words.

Do you think anyone reading this site, attracted to it, believes what your group of baby killer supporters say? Your site revels in its atheism and your liberal embrace of genocide against those helpless to defend themselves.

Here is what the monsters of the left preach on their own site:

Biblical views

Many of the most vocal pro-lifers base their beliefs on the Bible, claiming that the Bible says a fetus is a human. However, in parshat Mishpatim, God commands:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage [or "she gives birth prematurely"] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." - Exodus 21:22[11]

If the fetus was counted as a human, the acceptance of money as compensation would directly contradict two other quotes from the Bible, one of which also comes from Mishpatim.

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 21:12[12]

"Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death." - Numbers 35:31[13]

Numbers 5:11-31 is the only place the Bible specifically mentions abortion, and it is mentioned as part of a bizarre remedy which God orders priests to give women suspected of becoming pregnant out of wedlock. If a woman is suspected of pregnancy out of wedlock, priests are to give her a "bitter water" which will cause a miscarriage (in other words, induce abortion) if she has indeed conceived out of wedlock.

The Bible also contains prohibitions against "substituting the traditions of men for the commandments of God", which presumably includes substituting the traditions of the anti-abortion movement (which are not backed up anywhere in the Bible) for the commandments of God (for example, Numbers 5:11-31.)

The only place in scripture where a specific prohibition against abortion is ever given is in the Didache, a book which was rejected for inclusion in the Bible because it was deemed not to be inspired scripture. All of this begs the question, why is opposition to abortion such a central issue in today's evangelical churches? According to the Bible, these churches are preaching "another gospel" and let them be anathema and accursed for doing so.

Posted by: TK at April 22, 2009 5:17 AM

Outing the name of people you don't like, yet you keep going on about the LA Times article where you outed you own.

TK you are one to talk about privacy when you started a site threatening to post private information about people form RationalWiki. You are also the person that adds peoples place of work and phone numbers to block comments. Never forget you betrayed the privacy of every sysop on Conservapedia when you opened the previously private discussion group for the world to see.

We have never reposted the discussion group comments. We had our database offline for an hour whilst we removed private information about a CP sysop that an unregistered person posted. We have a much better track record than you do when it come to maintaining privacy.

Posted by: π at April 22, 2009 5:24 AM

#1 Anyone using a workplace computer, as the block you cite involved, for vandalism, isn't entitled to protections. I posted in the block information, that is publicly available for the owner of the IP. You are being disingenuous, completely misleading, saying I posted someone's personal information. The owner of any IP is not personal information, and is, and always has been, available to the public.

#2 Your argument is basically saying because one wrong occurred, you are rationally and morally entitled to all wrongs your site has made, including stating I am a drunk? How bogus.

#3 You caused a template to be created, still in use, that rotates personal information, like names. And the article you mention, was less than 4 column inches, two years ago? That is your justification for continuing to publish personal information?

#4 I have never started any site about RW, and have never once threatened to reveal personal information about anyone at your site. Never once. Someone did say they were going to post personal emails, which they asked me for, and which I refused to hand over. I did advise one person, that his rash and over the top posting, using his real name could come back to damage his employment. That he decided, deliberately to cause drama, to believe that was me making a threat is insane.

#5 You from some vandal site, preaching about what is moral, is pretty laughable. Why you have even fixed your wiki to not allow me to post there and refute your constant lies about me. And no one is going to believe you haven't. because I have let them log in as me, and they cannot make any posts, not even one.

#6 AmesG a Bureaucrat there, did have personal integrity, and agreed my personal information should be removed. He did so, promptly posted he was taking a leave from your vandal site, and another Administrator there promptly put all that personal information back. So much for your track record, your intent.

#7 Unlike your vandal site, with literally hundreds of vile personal insults about Conservapedia Administrators and editors, one cannot find just one vile slander of anyone running your site, nor any personal information about your site on Conservapedia.

#8 Tell us, "n" what is your real true name, if you really believe what you say? Why are you afraid to publicly use your user name at your site, or your real true given name, that you have no moral problems disclosing about people you don't agree with?

#9 Given your site's stated reason for being, that is refuting unscientific and illogical information, why does your site allow all the vile and smutty personal attacks? Why do you continue, as you always have, to demean every argument to the lowest form of language and misdirection, instead of doing what you claim your purpose is, intellectual examination? How does making personal attacks on individuals further making your site notable?

#10 Why cannot anyone from your site give a rational argument for all these personal attacks, and only offer the ineffectual and totally irrational argument of "you did it first!"? Why can't you accept that people have a right to free association, and the right to have a website free from interference if that is what they want? Why do you continue to offer the illogical argument that somehow a site owes you a non existent "right" of arguing with them? Your site seems to justify itself only because you are angry we didn't want to play with you, that we don't think like you, or hold your beliefs. That is pretty petty and immature. We don't like you, sure. But that doesn't justify a vendetta or one of you getting a gun and shooting us, or making horrible personal remarks about individuals. Why can't you just be honest and say without attacking CP, and those of us involved with it, your site would have no traffic? Your own members and Admins have said that in numerous posts there.

Just like Air America, your site can't get enough support or traffic with trading off of CP. Fair enough. I don't have a problem with your site refuting and rebutting anything on CP. But please explain why you think it is OK to call people involved with Conservapedia child molesters, bums, mentally unstable or drunks? Why send emails to underage Admins suggesting their view of the world would improve if they started engaging in premarital sex?

Now I am done engaging you on this nice ladies site. You won't allow me (and others) to argue at your site, and that is its stated purpose -- discourse. CP being an encyclopedia project, isn't the proper place for it either, and this site was not made to host our disagreements.

Posted by: TK at April 22, 2009 6:28 AM

Calm down dear, it's only the internets.

Posted by: Michael Winner at April 22, 2009 6:46 AM

Micheal Winner FTW!

Posted by: π at April 22, 2009 7:09 AM

There isn't any win. Material on your site cost me and my family dearly, when we needed help. A person read some of your "material" on me, and in response to my asking his help on a matter, he responded that what he read on your site made him decide I wasn't serious or legitimate. The person you ultimately injured was my 87 year old mother.

Easy to say, and a liberals usual response when they are legitimately called out, is to make that inane statement, minimize the issue. But let a liberal not like what they hear or read, its another story, and can be seen on your site. Be real proud of yourselves. I know with certainty most of the terrorist/vandals on your site, will be happy you caused me real pain and misfortune....and that is the real measure of who you people are. What you are.


Posted by: TK at April 22, 2009 7:22 AM

The violins are deafening me as I wipe the tears from my eyes. Your dear old mother, after you have played the the terrorism and baby murder cards you going for the cliché sentimental. Sorry I don't believe you but you have lied that many times, call it karma.

Posted by: π at April 22, 2009 7:34 AM

Ok, this conversation has degenerated enough and impersonating is not allowed, of course.

Closing comments.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 22, 2009 8:52 AM