Conservapedia talk:Conservative Principles

Where did the "ten" come from?  ħ uman  22:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Deletion
This entire article reeks of intolerance, propaganda, glittering generalities, and -- you see. I could go on. 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyone want to defend its right to exist? Typical liberal style. Tsk tsk. 00:29, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Going once. 00:45, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You should wait until people who care are online, O thief-in-the-dark. Bad Lyra. 00:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey, I was only on "once!" :P 00:52, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It might need to be in the CP namespace, since it is a rebuttal to one of their articles. Otherwise, generally, I would stand for its survival.


 * This entire article reeks of a response to intolerance, hypocrisy, and glittering generalities that never come into play when these idiots get power, and -- you see. I could go on.  ħ uman  01:19, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Sure, but I think now that all instances of the word "conservative" should be changed to "conservapedian," as that would make sense. I don't think ridiculing all conservatives, regardless, is good for the mission. 06:58, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I am of two minds there. First, I agree with you in that this site is not explicitly partisan, and shouldn't be.  However, if one looks at the history of the modern conservative movement in the US, and the real-world results of them gaining power (trying to kill science in some areas, starting dumb wars, wrecking the US budget), they are deserving of criticism.  Just as JFK was a bit of a loose cannon and dangerous daredevil in foreign policy (Missile crisis, Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam...), and deserves strong criticism for it.  However, there should be a way to actually say that in the article, if it survives.  My thought is it should be moved to the CP namespace, and the intro should specify that the points are being refuted/mocked relative to CP, not conservatism/conservatives in general.  And when it is moved, drop the "ten" in the title, and copy in the intro from the CP article that explains where these came from.  If no one wants to bother doing those things, I wouldn't think there would be a gaping hole in RW where this article used to exist.  But don't zap the talk page.  ħ uman  14:24, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, I think it should be moved into the Fun namespace, or else rewritten entirely. I mean, I hold many conservative beliefs, so do people like Barack Obama, and they do not like being ridiculed. It is foolish to generalize and say conservatives are all anti-science, crank, authoritarian, or fundamentalists. It is foolish to fight CP's fire with equally ignorant fire. 14:57, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Fun makes no sense. CP: does, since it is a "rebuttal" to some points covered in one of their articles.  By the way, just reading it, it seems fairly accurate.  It does not mock all conservatives, it mocks the idea that those we see in public life claiming to be conservatives follow these principles.  ħ uman  22:00, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Do you like my compromise? I just don't want to stain the wiki... 22:02, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * If people feel so strongly about teh thing, why not do a side by side on it? 22:08, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it's been taken care of. :) 22:22, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Lyra, please discuss things clearly on the talk page. What is "your compromise"?  The template?  Let us bring out all our points here in talk and decide what to do.  I can't answer your question, since I have no idea what you mean.  Also "I think it's been taken care of." also has no meaning in this context.  before I accuse you of wiki-lawyering and drive-by templating, can we please discuss the specific issues with this article (which I will be moving to the CP namespace shortly anyway... there's arbitrary for ya!)  ħ uman  23:25, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, do whatever you want with it. 23:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Getting it right
It would only be fair if we were to quote the CP versions in their entirety, and perhaps do a side-by-side?  ħ uman  23:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Think I suggested that up there ^ somewhere. 23:50, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * So, let's whip this piece of crap into shape?  ħ uman  00:59, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Omigod, if we actually quote their moronic idiocy to refute, it will actually get tiresome! That "article" is so bad.  CP gives the moldering carcass of conservatism a bad name.  ħ uman  01:11, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * OK, I copied it all over into a proper side-by-side setup. And I hope I largely addressed Lyra's concerns about slamming conservatives in general in the process.  ħ uman  15:27, 7 June 2008 (EDT)