Worse than Wikipedia

carlvs said:
Well to give them credit, they do mention it underneath the picture...
Click to expand...

And the text that is under the picture was added just a few minutes ago. And it says (in case it changes) "The bomber depicted here is a B-2 spirit, and largly unrelated to the above text."

For a previous edit User Bob got this warning from Aschlafly himself:
"Bob, you made an unsupported claim in your change to someone else's entry. This is a warning. A second time will result in blocking.--Aschlafly 22:46, 21 February 2007 (EST) "

To which he replies: "The claim I made replaced another unsupported claim, and had the advantage of being factually accurate. However, I will cite reference next time.
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bob"

carlvs said:
They state that the F-117 is being replaced by the F-22 when (according to its entry over on globalsecurity.org,) it is actually replacing the F-15 in the air superiority role.

......
Click to expand...

So you found another error (I know bombers and freighters... fighters, I'm not so hot with). Though it makes sense that the older technology craft is being replaced by the newest. From the USA AF fact sheets they are all three different aircraft. The F-22 is an "air dominance, multi-role fighter", the F-117A is a "fighter/attack plane", and the F-15 a "tactical fighter". The problem with designing high performance aircraft is trying to get the right mix of speed, maneuverability, range and the ability to carry lots of firepower (which adds weight), and often to do one thing well sacrifices need to be made somewhere. Which is why it was/is impossible to design an aircraft to satisfy every mission.

Andy Schlafly wouldn't know a B-2 Spirit bomber from an F-22, or even a Beech D18 if they were all sitting on the tarmac in front of him. He probably thinks the B-52s are just a singing group.
 
I know I am wasting too much time there, but I was alerted to this change by some Scienceblog bunch:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Vaccine which says:
A weakened or inactive version of a pathogen that stimulates the body's production of antibodies which can destroy the pathogen.[1]. Older vaccines got rid of smallpox and polio, which was good. Newer vaccines are being developed for use against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This is wrong, as it frees children to behave irresponsibly by removing the consequences of their actions. Vaccines against STDs are unnecessary for those who live Godly Christian lives (i.e., practicing monogamy and avoiding use of injected illegal drugs); such diseases are the just punishment of those who are un-Godly. While it is true that such vaccination may prevent infection of innocent lives (for example, a monogamous woman may be infected with AIDS, and pass the disease along to her children, due to a husband's use of drugs before marriage) some amount of loss of innocent life must be accepted as collateral damage for morality.
Click to expand...
 
I don't, at this moment, care for any online wiki-like reference. In my own hobbies, I've checked out these sections and find many mistakes. This is, mind you, after they've been up for years.
 
This was in that guy's blog linked here:Wacked blog

Is binge eating a disorder?
AP reports:

Frequent binge eating is America's most common eating disorder, far outpacing the better-known diet problems of anorexia and bulimia, according to a national survey.

Psychiatric researchers at Harvard University Medical School and its affiliate, McLean Psychiatric Hospital, have billed the study as the first national census of eating disorders. The results were published last Thursday in the medical journal Biological Psychiatry.

The survey found that 3.5 percent of women and 2 percent of men suffer from binge eating, defined as bouts of uncontrolled eating, well past the point of being full, that occur at least twice a week. ...

"Everyone has a sense, whether from a casual inspection of people on Broadway or an empirical study, that there are a lot of problems with binge eating and overeating," he said. "The question is, is it a cause or a symptom?"

Seeing a lot of fat people tells you that overeating is a problem, but why is binge eating a problem or an eating disorder?

We presumably evolved from hominids who feasted on the occasional big kill. There are large snakes that just eat once a month or less. Maybe occasional binge eating is healthier that eating frequent small meals.

This paper appears to be an attempt to get binge eating classified as a DSM-IV psychological disorder, so shrinks will have new excuses to treat people. posted by Roger Schlafly at 17:46:44
Click to expand...

:covereyes

This guy needs more than anything modern psychology could dream up. We need a cure for stupidity to help him.

And for the record eating disorders are already in the DSM, moron.
 
So, anyone tried to edit the factually-inaccurate entries?
 
CACTUSJACKmankin said:
What is the point of all of these biasedpedias? I'm not even comfortable with evowiki.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently this one was created to give us yet another reason to laugh at the Schlafly family, especially Andy the Esquire.

To point this out, check out the definition of Japan: "Group of islands of the western coast of Asia. "

Somebody please get these folks a compass! Or at least tell them where Japan is!

Then there is the entry for Pilgrims: "Pilgrims were people (mostly puritans) in the 1600's that traveled to the American Colonies because of persecution in England. These settlers started the very first settlement in the American colonies, Jamestown"

Which is wrong in so many ways. First, that is just a definition of one particular group of pilgrims... And, of course, Jamestown was not a Puritan settlement, and nor was it the first English settlement (though it did better than the ones before).

Also, to show the height of stupidity the main vanguard of the Schlafly empire, The Eagle Forum, will have classes teaching American history using this bit of silliness as a study aid. From http://www.eagleforumu.org/eagleforumu/ :
Give your student a real course in American history, starting January 20, 2007! Sign up now and read the first lecture! This free course covers all the major topics in United States history, from exploration to today. This course makes use of the conservative encyclopedia being built by students, parents and scholars at Conservapedia. Please join this course and begin participating immediately! The teacher is Andy Schlafly, who has personally taught 120 homeschoolers, including his own children. Many of Mr. Schlafly's homeschooled students are now in top colleges.​
Click to expand...
 
heh, i started another thread on conservapedia. I searched the forums for conservapedia but this thread didn't show up. perhaps i misspelled it.

BTW, I notice the same mistake I made in tagging my thread. You've run 2 tags together. You might try deleting the current tag and adding conservapedia and stupidity as separate tags.
 
Here's some history:
Civil War
The American Civil War was a war in the United States of America between the North and the South. The North wanted the South to give up its slaves. The South wanted to keep its slaves and lower tariffs.
Click to expand...
This is oversimplistic to the point of being inaccrate. Wars aren't caused by one or two things. Animosity between the north and south for centuries and in many ways still exists. What about state's rights, preserving the union, industrial vs agricultural, and others?

Prohibition
The article for prohibition and its related articles fail to mention the reasons why the 18th amendment was repealed.
 
Last edited:
Goshawk said:
I also didn't see anything objectionable in their overview of Evolution. Especially since it finishes up with:
...Scientists point to the massive scientific support for the Theory of Evolution. Supporters of contrary and irrational belief systems, such as Creationism and Intelligent Design have so far failed to gain any scientific support for their theories, and therefore resort to misrepresenting scientific arguments in order to further their own agendas.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty balanced to me.
Click to expand...

The page has been edited to remove the section you quote. Further a section added that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
 
According to leading conservative thinkers, no good Christian would ever be a Democrat. (Reference BADLY needed) Catholics identify as Democrats more than Republican, but the opposite is true for Evangelicas. (reference needed)

The official platform of the Democratic party claims to involve strengthening America.[1] However, the Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism[2], treasonous anti-Americanism[3], and comtempt for America's founding principles such as freedom of religion[4].
Click to expand...
Good Lord
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Nope... it is the work of one Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer and son of Phyllis Schlafly:
Click to expand...

Ah, old Andy, denser than depleted uranium.

Andy once accused me of not being able to spell "millennium". When several people pointed out to him why The Millenium Project has the name it has, he demolished us all by repeating the claim that I couldn't spell "millennium".
 
I have half a mind to sign up, make an entry for "paint" and have the entry be: "The approximate IQ of the people who edit Conservapedia"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom