Conservapedia:Community Portal

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Community Portal/Archives

This page contains some material that has been moved from Talk:Main_Page. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.



Contents

On proper grammar, or, did you know that most of the population of Texas is homosexual?

I have chided Cons repeatedly on proper punctuation, particularly regarding subordinate clauses and compound sentences. For a sample, see User_talk:SamHB#Re:_Aburke.

Well, it turns out that the same errors can show up in unexpected places, like the Texas Republican party’s official platform. It has:

Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

See this.

Watch those commas!!!! SamHB (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (EDT)

Wow. And shouldn't it be "have been ordained" rather than "has been ordained"? RobS Pat Nixon for President 13:12, 20 May 2016 (EDT)

States and Governors

I mentioned this earlier, but nothing happened - here are the U.S. states with red-linked governors:

state governor ann
Alaska Bill Walker
Arizona Doug Ducey
Arkansas Asa Hutchinson
Hawaii David Ige
Illinois Bruce Rauner
Maryland Larry Hogan Thank you, User:DavidB4!
Montana Steve Bullock
Nebraska Pete Ricketts
New Hampshire Maggie Hassan
North Carolina Pat McCrory
Pennsylvania Tom Wolf
Rhode Island Gina Raimondo
Washington Jay Inslee

It seems that Doug Ducey even isn't any longer governor of Arizona! The overall look of the articles on the smaller states is quite abysmal - and often outdated. As I am not American, I do not feel up to editing these articles in detail, but I have to ask: If they cannot use Conservapedia even to check who the governor of an U.S. state is, what will high-school pupils think of it? They have to rely on Wikipedia to get up-dated information!

It would be nice to have articles on the governors, too, just to check their political priorities. --AugustO (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

I know a fair amount about political concepts, people I can have a hand in electing, and other well-known political figures. However, I know little about--if you'll pardon the expression--lesser politicians, who have little significance to me. Therefore, I'm sorry to say that I know almost nothing about these governors. However, I've done a little on a couple of them. I may do more, but all I can do is research then write based on what I find. It could be hopelessly inaccurate, but I have no way of knowing. For this reason, I'm trying not to add too much detail, since I don't want to make fa lse statements. If anyone else knows anything about them, please add to or revise what I've written! --David B (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2016 (EDT)
Well spoken, David. Speak of what you know; not of what some website wants you to believe. AlanE (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

One column footnoting vs. two column footnoting and mobile devices

For this article Operation Compass I added footnoting code at the bottom of the article for the new editor.

If you look at the article, you will see that the footnoting is one column footnoting and not two column footnoting.

I think I recall reading that one column footnoting is better for mobile device readers, but I am not sure. Do you know if this is the case or not?

Also, if you look at my edit which is HERE, you will see that my column width is colwidth=30em . I think this might be better for mobile devices as well, but I am not sure.

If I am right about these two matters, I think Conservapedia's manual of style should be updated. Also, we might want to clean up our most high traffic articles so one column format is used.

Does anyone know about these matters? I ask because a lot of people are using mobile devices now. Conservative (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

I don't know, but I have a testing platform I might be able to use tomorrow, if no one else knows either. It would have sense that single columns would be better, but the Wiki software comes with a mobile mode, so this might counteract columns. I'll try to get back to you on this. --David B (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
I'll do some real-world testing tomorrow, but if you click the "Mobile View" link in CP's footer (here's the direct link), you can see that columns are removed completely. Therefore, it seems that it shouldn't matter what we do for columns. --David B (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
A big problem with 2 column footnotes is that if there are a small number of footnotes, it will break them up with only one or two words in the second column. It does not have code to put the column break between two different footnotes. Thank you DavidB for cleaning this up. JDano (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
I'm not very good at designing templates for Wikis, but I wonder if someone could fix that. Anyway, I did a little testing and all the mobile platforms I tried did load the wiki's mobile view, with the single column of references. I even tried the Atheism article, with its three columns and had the same result, even if it was painfully slow due to the size of the page. It looks like we can do columns for computers only without worrying about mobile viewing. If you have anything else you want me to check, though, let me know! --David B (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (EDT)

OK. Thanks. Conservative (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2016 (EDT)

Is Trump the new Zachary Taylor?

That's what this article argues: "How an outsider president killed a party." Taylor, elected president in 1848, was the ultimate outsider candidate, even more so than Trump. He had no political experience whatsoever, and he proudly boasted that he had never even voted. When he was nominated by the Whig Party, he was known only as the commander who defeated the Mexicans at Buena Vista. But I can't agree with the article's headline. Taylor was not the guy responsible for the downfall of the Whigs. That would be Millard Fillmore, Taylor's vice president. If Taylor was the non-ideological celebrity candidate of 1848, Fillmore was a true believer, a Whig version of Ted Cruz. Whig ideology called for the president to defer to Congress. Taylor died in office after a year. When Fillmore succeed, the long-frustrated "ultra Whigs" finally got their day in the sun. It was a disaster. Although personally opposed to slavery, Fillmore deferred to Congress as a good Whig. This meant strictly enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It was a combination of views made him hugely unpopular, both in the North and in the South. The party collapsed in 1852. PeterKa (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

They're at it again

Is there anyone around who can block these people? There still creating accounts. Maybe we should add "1.888.811.4532" to the spam filter. SamHB (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

Blocked--finally. You're right, they keep using text from the same crawls of Amazon and Quickbooks. It should be easy to add temporary entries to the spam filter. --David B (TALK) 23:14, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
They're still at it. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

Is the server clock messed up?

The clock seems to be a few hours fast. According to what it says, I'm going to try to repair the E=mc^2 article at about 04:30. It is now 00:46 EDT. Or have you switched to UTC? I thought CP was on EST/EDT. SamHB (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (EDT)

Never mind. It's back on EDT now. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2016 (EDT)

Fair use images

What is our policy on fair use of copyrighted or trademark-protected images? Please take a look at: Pajamas Media logo.gif. Thanks, JDano (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2016 (EST)

I am not aware of a specific, written code to follow regarding this on CP. In general, I think most people here try to avoid copyrighted images. However, some use them as WP does (any image, anytime, anywhere can be uses under Fair Use, it seems is their policy), and no one here seems to object. Personal, I try to avoid copyrights except when the copyright is help by an organization friendly to CP. Answers In Genesis I have no problem with, because it is my assumption that I probably have the legal right, but in any case I expect they appreciate friendly publicity. I could always be wrong, though...
Trademark laws are a little less restrictive, and since we are not selling a product under their trademark, it is my understanding that it is usually acceptable to use these images. However, if they are also copyrighted, I usually will not. Even in court, Fair Use is a pain, because it is ambiguous, but I'd advise that you err on the side of caution. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that for the most part, each person does what they think is right. (Perhaps like "...every man did that which was right in his own eyes." -Judges 21:25?)
I'll stop rambling in just a moment, but a pseudo-legal definition I've heard is "Spontaneous usage of a portion of a work for a purpose which generates no profit for the user, nor takes profit from the owner." Other definitions I've heard almost always also include some element of spontaneity, such as a teacher sees an article online, prints off a page or two of it, and hands it out to the class for study in class. I don't know where to draw the line, though. As you probably know better than I, WP seems to assume that anything is fine to use, since it is for education purposes and does not directly generate revenue for them (though nice articles tend to lead to more donations). It may be alright to use this policy since they get away with it, but I personally prefer not to risk it for the most part. Perhaps an admin here knows more on the topic. I know I've spoken to Jpatt about copyright issues before, so you could always try asking him directly, if you don't get a satisfactory answer here. --David B (TALK) 13:31, 19 November 2016 (EST)
This is the guidelines for images here:[1] Karajou (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2016 (EST)

Hillary's Downfall

The original (and still hysterically funny) version is here. This version is updated for 2016. PeterKa (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (EST)

Browser search engine: Conservapedia

It seems that most browsers have Wikipedia listed as one of the available search engines. It occurs to me that some might find the same useful for CP. What do you all think? I've stared a page to show what I'm thinking. Can I get some input?
One important factor is that I don't think this can be easily set up for Internet Explorer. Also, Firefox is being a problem, but I may be able to assemble an XML file that works. Is something like this worth publishing? (see: User:DavidB4/search conservapedia) --David B (TALK) 01:36, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Math conundrum

This meme started in Japan and is confounding people across the Internet:

x=9-3÷⅓+1 PeterKa (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Are you suggesting that if a high school student read CP, he could not find what he needs to answer this correctly? JDano (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (EST)

Was Hitler a Catholic?

The article Liberal myths says "They claim Hitler was a Catholic." The article Christian In Name Only says "Despite being raised Roman Catholic and claiming that Jesus was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his social darwinistic views." It also includes "The Catholic Church" as all being XINO. What are we trying to communicate here? That liberals are wrong in claiming that Hitler was a Catholic in name only, or that because Hitler was raised a Catholic, even if Hitler had remained a faithful practitioner of Catholicism, he would still be just a XINO? Or that liberals claim that Hitler was true to the teaching and spirit of the Catholic Church in his every thought and deed? Or is it a liberal myth that the complexity of Christianity can be reduced to a short list of XINOs? Please help! JDano (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (EST)

My beliefs may differ from CPs, but as I understand it, Hitler claimed to be a catholic to win favor. He was not (he was actually very involved in the occult) but even if he had been, it would have been questionable whether he was a Christian or not. His actions proved he was not a Christian or a catholic, however, so I suppose you could say he was two-fold Christian in name only. --David B (TALK) 09:32, 29 December 2016 (EST)
Many secular liberals like to claim that Hitler was a Christian or a Roman Catholic in order to blame Christianity for the Holocaust, as well as every other evil in the world. That's all it is. Hitler clearly opposed Christianity,[2][3] believed in evolution, [4] and tried to modify Protestantism in Germany into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.[5] (I also read somewhere that Hitler wished that Islam were the dominant religion in Europe because it was "stronger" and he thus could use it better). I think what the article is saying is that Hitler, like the R.C.C., claimed to be Christian, but in reality had beliefs far from biblical Christianity. His denomination does not appear to really matter. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (EST)
Historians have generally viewed the Pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy as being complicit in spreading anti-Semitism and being supportive of the Holocaust. However, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have changed a lot since 1939, particularly for blaming the Jews for Christ's death. I believe that it is probably a mistake to list the entire Roman Catholic Church as XINO, and the terse "They claim Hitler was a Catholic." is too condensed to help the reader. There are many ways to criticize liberals, and this one is probably so weak that most people would not list it. If the Roman Catholic Church is XINO, what about the Mormons? JDano (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)
I (and probably the person who added the R.C.C.) believe the R.C.C. is XINO because of theological reasons rather than promoting politically left-wing ideology (even though I could name some R.C. clergy who would be better characterized as leftist activists). On issues such as the way to salvation (the most important one), the R.C.C. follows doctrine that the Bible not only does not support, but also speaks against. Same with the Mormons. That is why the R.C.C. is listed here.
Also, because so many Roman Catholics edit CP, I should make myself clear that I have nothing against Catholics or Mormons, and I think many of them are great people. I say what I say not to bash them but to point out that many of their doctrines are false and unbiblical. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (EST)
I also enjoy working with Catholics and Mormons. I find religion to be very deep and textured. At this point in my life, when I look back at all of the decisions and judgments that I have made, I no longer can tell where religion ends and my personal ethics takes over -- everything was baked together. I think that wikis or general encyclopedias are not suited for religious teaching or debate. So, I cringe when I read the stuff on Liberal myths and Christian In Name Only. It is like trying to publish a book called "Religion for Dummies." JDano (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)
Yes, it can be a problem when people with very different theological beliefs (despite the same political and cultural views) edit articles like that. I do think, however, that both Roman Catholics and Protestants have no problem with the material on "Liberal myths." I could be wrong, but the XINO article seems to have been quite stable over the years, which is quite remarkable, considering the disagreements of our editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (EST)
Hitler was from Austria. At that time, everyone in Austria was Catholic. So he was Catholic in the sense that he didn't publicaly break with the faith. Hitler's Table Talk records what he said in private dinner conversations. He's real views was Nietzschean and social Darwinist, according to the book. He thought Christianity is for weaklings, and so forth. PeterKa (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (EST)
New book says Hitler was a pantheist. That puts him in bed witbh Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawking. Which makes sense. RobS#NeverHillary 01:23, 30 December 2016 (EST)
Hitler already made clear that he did not adhere to Catholicism at all, nor in point of fact, had he ever practiced the faith. He left the Catholic Church a long time prior to becoming Fuhrer, and UNLIKE Protestants, we Catholics don't adhere to the "Once Saved, Always Saved" ideology. Any "claims" to being Christian, Catholic or Protestant was typical cynical politics being displayed, no different than when Barack Obama or the Clintons claimed they were Christians, or Josef Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II. So far as the R.C.C. being XINO, are you seriously telling me that the Roman Catholic Church, which BTW had direct ties to Saint Peter, the first Pope (which is even directly alluded to with the passage of "Upon this rock you would find my Church"), is Christian in Name Only? They had direct ties to the founding of Christianity in the form of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. If you're going to call us XINOs, you might as well call THEM that as well, and I don't think people would take kindly towards anyone implying that Saints are XINOs. Them and the Eastern Orthodox, I should add. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2017 (EDT)
Not all Protestants believe that once God, by His grace alone and not by our works, saves us, that we're always saved. It's part of the whole Arminian/Calvinist dispute. I agree with the Calvinists, who believe that someone who God has chosen to elect unto salvation will always be elected. It's theology, not ideology. See this article, which further explains my position.
Regarding apostolic succession, the short answer is that along the way in history (around 500-1200 AD) unbiblical teachings started penetrating the church, and its leadership accepted those views. Theologically, they did not believe the same things as the apostles. It was the Reformers who, when they read Scripture (all independenly from each other: Peter Waldo, John Wycliff, Jan Hus, Luther, Zwingli, etc.), who again taught what the apostles received. But make no mistake: the gospel was being proclimed throughout the Middle Ages (Waldo, etc.). Articles that better explain my position: [6][7]
But I agree with you regarding Hitler. Like other politicians, he would try to associate himself publically with a Christian denomination, in this case, the R.C.C. In public, he tried to persuade his audience he was a Christan, but he also appeased his atheistic friends by criticizing Christianity. His plan was to replace Christianity with his own pagan Nazi religion once he won the war. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter

See Top conservatives on Twitter for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative. Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still in existence, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2016.

Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016 (top 20 each category)
Twitter poster Increase
in followers
2016
Percent
increase
in followers
Pres.-Elect Donald J. Trump +13,053,000 +237%
Dr. Ben Carson +1,475,000 +136%
Michelle Malkin +943,000 +105%
Sean Hannity +697,000 +56%
Laura Ingraham +550,000 +89%
Ann Coulter +463,000 +63%
Judge Jeanine Pirro +292,000 +222%
Franklin Graham +277,000 +59%
Sarah Palin +226,000 +20%
Tucker Carlson +224,000 +89%
Steven Crowder +180,000 +122%
Dinesh D'Souza +166,000 +69%
Mark Levin +157,000 +30%
James O'Keefe +147,000 +198%
Katie Pavlich +145,000 +70%
Allen West +137,000 +29%
Dr. Charles Krauthammer +121,000 +20%
Monica Crowley +114,000 +42%
Linda Suhler, Ph. D. +90,000 +48%
Gov. Greg Abbott +65,000 +40%
John Nolte +46,000 +74%
Dennis Prager +28,000 +50%
Hugh Hewitt +42,000 +47%
Nikki Haley +57,000 +47%
Sen. Tim Scott +51,000 +45%

VargasMilan (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (EST)

A better example of conservatism actually selling is Milo's book deal with Simon & Schuster.[8] Historically, the only conservatives the "big five" book publishers dealt with were those with bankable personalities, i.e. people who had a built-in audiences due to regular appearances on Fox News or whatever. Only Regnery would publish books by lesser-known conservatives. Liberals think Al Franken is a great comedian because he wrote Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. Why can't they see the humor in “Science Proves It: Fat-Shaming Works”? PeterKa (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2017 (EST)

Alexa rank

User:Conservative was "crowing" about how Conservapedia in April of last year had reached 100,000 on the Alexa world rank. As of today [9], it's reached a global ranking of 55,877.

Is this a new record? Does the increase reflect only a seasonal factor or impressive growth? Do you suppose people around the world want to know more about conservatism now that conservatives have outvoted the opposition to help elect their preference to be the next President? VargasMilan (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2017 (EST)

We're sorely lacking in new content. All that new traffic to read many articles which are outdated and have not been maintained. I don't know... RobS#NeverHillary 07:42, 9 January 2017 (EST)
The graph makes it look like a record. As a site grows, the number does usually drop, so this seems to be a good sign. RobS has a point, though--we have a lot of outdated content, so at the very least we need to spiff it up so we don't loose traffic.
On a side note, I am suspicious of the 7.5% of traffic from China. Firstly, we don't have any significant Chinese content, secondly the "great firewall of china" probably blocks citizens form accessing CP, and thirdly China is notorious for their cyber attacks as of late. Oh well... --David B (TALK) 09:47, 9 January 2017 (EST)
I should note that we are still growing internationally, but we are starting to shrink in the U.S. (after a long period of growth and reaching what likely was a record high, of course). In mid-December, we were at 12,535 in the U.S., but now we are at 16,553. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Forty percent of our traffic is from search engines. Nine percent of the search engine traffic goes to the Poe's law article. PeterKa (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2017 (EST)
@DavidB, so what do you think? Putin is routing traffic through Chinese servers to influence French and German elections? RobS#NeverHillary 10:34, 10 January 2017 (EST)
@RobS Don't say that too loud, or the MSM will start screaming it! It sounds just like something they would say. I assume your comment was in jest but text doesn't carry inflection, so just to be clear, no I don't think that! I'm not sure what to think about that traffic--it seems odd, and I'm not sure how to explain it. It could be genuine, but I'd sooner suspect something synthetic...Chinese hacking???? --David B (TALK) 11:06, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Either hacking or the Chinese are interested in American politics because of the election. I sure hope its not the first one! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (EST)
I hope so too. The website is still here, so that's a good sign at least. (Although realistically, they usually gather information rather than destroy it.) --David B (TALK) 11:16, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Whoever it is, their culling for ideas. CP has become pivotal in the global struggle against globalization and the New World Order. RobS#NeverHillary 12:25, 10 January 2017 (EST)

Given the number of web pages that Conservapedia has, I doubt that 9% of Conservapedia's search engine traffic comes from the Poe's law article. Alexa is wrong about this matter. I largely wrote the Poe's Law article and my guess is that only a very small percentage of Conservapedia's search engine traffic comes from this article. If you look at the total page views of Conservapedia and then look at the view counter for the Poe's law article, you will probably come to the same conclusion that I have made. Conservative (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

Unlock Template:Infobox person?

Could I get someone to unlock the Template:Infobox person page? It should have some more elements, and perhaps be merged with Template:Infobox person2. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 11:24, 12 January 2017 (EST)

New templates to mark direction of changes

I have added five new templates, which I hope will gain widespread adoption. These templates show icons to indicate increase or decrease, such as ranking in a list or company profit.

  • Increase: {{Increase}}, to show an increase or going up in rankings
  • Decrease: {{Decrease}}, to show a decrease or going down in rankings
  • Steady: {{Steady}} = to show no change

An optional first argument alters the tooltip comment. For example, {{Decrease|-5%}} produces -5%.

In cases where a symbol is needed to represent an increase that is "bad" or a decrease that is "good", such as a rise or fall in road accident fatalities, the following should be used:

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2017 (EST)

Political directory

A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like Elizabeth Warren, the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected Ohio, but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. JDano (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --David B (TALK) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. JDano (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <s>State</s>.

Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. JDano (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <s>state</s> to <b>state</b>. Many thanks! JDano (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

I recommend adding the phrase "As of 2017" to the "Elected officials" sections of each state. With this, we will know the exact date when these officials were all in power, and we will hopefully be more compelled to update the list later. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2017 (EST)
That may work unless there is a mid-year vacancy. I am troubled that some of these pages were not updated for 4 or more years. I am also looking for references to folks that made recent moves, for example we have a new Alabama Attorney General, because the old one joined the Senate to fill Jeff Session's seat. JDano (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2017 (EST)

Conservapedia IRC channel

Our Internet Relay Chat article claims that we have channel on freenode. However, it has not been used for quite some time (last used April 6th, 2008 at 17:52:59, to be exact). Has the channel been moved, or does CP no longer have IRC? If it exists, I'd like to join it. If not, someone should delete that statement from the IRC article. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 16:48, 16 February 2017 (EST)

I don't think the IRC channel is active anymore.
I could be wrong, but I think IRC channels make your computer very susceptible to malware attacks. I think a weekly or biweekly Skype conference chat would be better for those who are interested. Skype is a very secular network. Conservative (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the response! I've responded on my talk page --David B (TALK) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

Uncategorized images

All the images on the page Railway track are uncategorized. Could they please be added to a category, such as Category:Rail transport. I cannot add them myself because they are protected. Desmonduk (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2017 (EST)

That's a good idea. I've been pushing for a image categorizing project for a while, but the problem is that only full admins can unprotect images. That would be a massive undertaking, and they have other more time-sensitive things to work on. Therefore, this just doesn't get done. The site software automatically generates a list of images which as not categorized here: Special:UncategorizedFiles. If you can make progress with this, that would be great. However, you will need a full administrator to do it. Here is a list of registered admins, but most of them seem inactive now. Jpatt, Karajou, Aschlafly, Conservative, TerryH, and Ed Poor are the only once I can remember seeing contribute in the recent past. You could ask them, but you may have the same luck as me. --David B (TALK) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (EST)
Thank you. Desmonduk (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (EST)
I have created an index to the Uncategorized images at Uncategorized files. Desmonduk (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Wow. What a task. Thanks for doing that. We should post reminders wherever neccessary, and Andy should emphasize before granting upload priveleges, to please add a category when uploading, rather than leaving the burden to somebody else later. Too many editors with upload privileges are in the habit of uploading in haste and creating massive redundancy and confusion for the whole project later.
Is there a program or extension that would stop an upload until a category is added? Thanks. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 14:19, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Thanks, Desmonduk!
The greater problem now is not that the images were uploaded this way, but that they were locked, so only an admin can unlock and edit them. I must dig for sometimes 10-15 minutes before I can find an unprotected uncategorized file which I can deal with. It's a terrible waste of time. --David B (TALK) 15:52, 25 February 2017 (EST)
You are welcome. I am enjoying editing Conservapedia because I don't get the abuse I used to get on Wikipedia. Desmonduk (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (EST)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no longer a conservative tweeter. Is it because he is no longer a conservative? By no means—rather it is because he is no longer a tweeter. Sessions deleted his account very recently, with all likelihood because of his preparation for, and because of his changed priorities in, carrying out his weighty new responsibilities. I will keep an eye out for his Twitter presence in case he returns and hope the Conservapedia community will do so as well. VargasMilan (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (EST)

User:ChristopherW

I am a little concerned about the blocking of User:ChristopherW - see Special:Contributions/ChristopherW. It is not clear to me what he has done wrong. Desmonduk (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

As far as ChristoherW's edit to the microevolution article which was "They are, needless to say, wrong.", would a print encyclopedia say something that is needless to say? No, they would not. It was obviously snarky trolling. There were other signs of snarky trolling as well.
I do realize that he made some useful edits. That is what the smarter parodist/trolls do.
Conservapedia has had a handful of parodists who have uncloaked themselves and indicated that were parodists after contributing more than a perfunctory amount of content. In each and every case, I told fellow admins my suspicions and I was right 100% of the time. Their parody type material (or other unsuitable material) was quickly deleted as they went along. In some cases I put them to work as I knew they were smart enough to create quality articles. I got User: Rodweathers to create the Atheism and beliefs article and User: Bible Sherman to create the Soviet atheism article.
Unfortunately, User:ChristopherW was either unable or unwilling to create quality articles. His article on a Koran topic was a horrible article.
After all is said and done, I will not unblock him. The costs outweigh the benefits. Conservative (talk)
Noted, thank you. Desmonduk (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Thanks. I improved the microevolution article. I added the necessary additional material which supposedly was unnecessary to say. :) My guess is that User: ChristopherW was probably ignorant on the topic of microevolution vs. macroevolution and if he got in a public debate with a creationist he would very likely lose (see: Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists). Conservative (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Vaccination

I am thinking of creating an article: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination. Wikipedia is fanatically pro-vaccination. This is very apparent in the Wikipedia article Vaxxed [10]. It is allegedly about the film "Vaxxed" but is actually a potentially libelous character assassination of Dr Andrew Wakefield. My own view is that parents should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to have their children vaccinated. Is this in line with Conservapedia policy? Desmonduk (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

As long as you stick to the facts and cite you sources, as always, I don't see a problem. Vaccination is something liberals like to push, often using the "herd mentality" (if you don't do this, others will suffer, and by doing this, you help everyone). There are definitely some reasons not to take vaccinations, so an article like this makes sense. I haven't read WP's article, but probably they are ignoring the inconvenient truths of how destructive and ineffective vaccines can be, as they tend to do on other topics as well. --David B (TALK) 11:11, 27 March 2017 (EDT)
Thank you. Desmonduk (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (EDT)
One tip: when citing the Wikipedia articles as evidence, please be sure to use the permanent links, as the article content can change. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2017 (EDT)
Thank you. I have created the article at Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination. Desmonduk (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Changing a username

I tried to find out how to change my User Name but was unsuccessful. Can anyone help me? -Unsigned comment by User:BertSchlossberg

I could be wrong, but I don't think the wiki software permits username changes. Other than creating a new account and switching to that, I don't think there is a way. However, if anyone here would know, User:Aschlafly probably would; you could ask him directly. --David B (TALK) 23:43, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
Changes in user names are allowed by the wiki software, but an admin has to rename the account. Your contribution history and watch list moves over to the renamed account. JDano (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

Deplorable state of science

A while back I was shocked to learn that when an investigator performing a trial of a sample of scientific journal articles whose scientific procedures supported a conclusion, half the studies' conclusions could not be reproduced when the procedures were repeated.

I noted that reproducibility is an essential element of scientific knowledge, and that those journal articles that didn't share that quality, didn't deserve to be called science, a word that originally meant "highly established knowledge". Instead, the most it deserved to be called was empirical opinion.

Now I have become horrified to learn that more than 99% of scientific studies in journals did not follow the scientific method![1] I at least thought that the studies described above at least pretended to follow the scientific method and not that the now-so-called scientific community had abandoned the scientific method wholesale!

Fortunately a big player in scientific journals, Public Library of Science One (PLOS) is trying to turn this around, but we ought to expect this library will face the same time difficulties they would face if they were to attempt to turn a large ship around.

They have revived the definition of the scientific method and reduced the method to eight minimum responsibilities:

  1. Test multiple reasonable hypotheses
  2. Provide useful findings
  3. Fully disclose methods, data, and other relevant information
  4. Conduct a comprehensive review of prior knowledge
  5. Use valid and comparable data
  6. Use valid and simple methods
  7. Provide any experimental evidence
  8. Reach conclusions consistent with the evidence

The author of the article, Allum Bokhari, reported that one of the scientists, J. Scott Armstrong noted that "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violates all eight of his checklist for following the scientific method. 'If you don't believe me, you can go and look at their work and you can use that checklist.'"

VargasMilan (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

References

  1. Bokhari, Allum (March 31, 2017). "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: 'No one asks' researchers to follow scientific method". Interview with Dr. J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green. Breitbart/Radio website.

Conservapedia's insights

Over the years, Andrew Schlafly came up with some insights about the Bible, which are now aggregated at Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible. These are introduced as

Conservapedia has produced a growing list of insights about the Bible:

Though Conservapedia and Andrew Schlafly are often one and the same, I think at this place it should be made clear that these are Andrew Schlafly's personal insights, which - as far as I can see - are not shared with many editors. Therefore, I propose the introduction:

On Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly has produced a growing list of personal insights about the Bible:

I don't want to get into an edit war about this, so I ask for guidance. --AugustO (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

They're personal insights, but Andy shares the insights with others using something called language. VargasMilan (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Thanks, VargasMilan. I say "Conservapedia's insights" because they developed on Conservapedia with the assistance of others, including even August!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
President Obama shared his insights with us using language, too. That doesn't make them "American Insights". Is here engaged conservapedian but Andrew Schlafly - perhaps one of the sysops - who supports these insights? I may have helped to erase some embarrassing obvious basic errors in the translations, but I cannot follow most of Andrew Schlafly's conclusions. Anyone?--AugustO (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Anyone? --AugustO (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
I specifically agree with # 1, 2, and 7. Given what I know, I somewhat disagree with 4, 6, and 8. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with any certainty on the other points, and given my lack of significant multilingual skills, I could be wrong.
To #4 I say: In English, this may seem like a small change, but a switch from possessive to adjective seems significant. I doubt every bible translator would have been mistaken on this.
To #6: That seems rather like a stretch. The general meaning of actions over words is there, but I very much doubt the manuscripts had the equivalent of "liberal claptrap" on them.
#8: With all of the checking and rechecking, it is difficult for portion to simply be inserted. Sure, scribal notes have been integrated, but that's different. Her sin was punishable by death, but it seems that Jesus was trying to use her as an example to show the radical change he was teaching. He was not in any way condoning adultery, but he was demonstrating that even the most grievous sin can be forgiven. Those who thought themselves righteous were shown to be in a worse place than her, because she was (presumably) repentant, while they were clearly not repentant of their sins. --David B (TALK) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
I also question #5. It's true that Jesus sometimes spoke about himself in the third person, but if he was risen from the dead, would he really need to explain the history of himself in third person? He could just open their eyes and show them, rather than going to the work of explaining it. I don't know--no one does, but this sound questionable to me. Besides, on the road to Amadeus, it says he "talked with them" and answered questions. Hebrews is a one-sided speech or letter, not a conversation. I know people took much longer durations in conversation to speak before giving others their turn to speak, but this is a non-stop message. --David B (TALK) 13:42, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
DavidB4, I really appreciate your feedback about this. Starting with #8, that was fully vetted here on Conservapedia in Essay:Adulteress Story. The crime was not punishable by stoning at the time, and there are numerous other historical flaws to the story. Virtually all scholars agree the story is a fabrication inserted later into the Bible. Most versions acknowledge this with a footnote. Yet liberals are more likely to cite this story than any other - which is another reason to be skeptical about its authenticity. Thanks for your interest.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

Personally, I have no great problem with the general statement on the Bible - like #1, #2, #7. But the moment, Andrew Schlafly addresses a specific verse, problems arise. --AugustO (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I appreciate the info. I'll do some more study on the matter when I get the chance. I think this is the first time I've heard it challenged, so it is somewhat surprising to hear that so many people question it. I'll do some reading on the matter when I find the time. What I don't quite understand is, why do liberal like to cite it? Because it implies sin is okay? Because it suggests Jesus is not offended by transgression? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 22:34, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
Also, regarding adultery not being punishable by death, am I mistaken, or was that the penalty under levitical law? Even though the Romans were the only ones who could legally pronounce the death sentence, it could be claimed that the Jews were so engaged that they were going to do it anyway. Of course, I have no idea if this is actually the case, but it is a possible explanation. --David B (TALK) 00:48, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
It's all explained in the entry Essay:Adulteress Story. Adultery was punishable by death, but not by stoning. Liberals love the story because says sinners cannot punish anyone, and certainly never the death penalty. Also, the story says no one even has to ask for forgiveness!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Andy, you write: "The adulteress story is a phony insertion by liberals" Who were these phony time-travelling liberals who inserted the story before the 4th century? --AugustO (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, and besides, considering that even the Douay-Rheims bible (the oldest version of the bible known to man) includes the passage, it's unlikely that it was just inserted in, and more likely than not was genuine. Now, I do agree that I don't like it when Liberals abuse that passage, but that doesn't mean we should reject it as a forgery. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Please check fake news article

I and JDano have differing opinions of how the article Fake News should be organized and what information it should include and where. I request that other editors give their opinion. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

STOP! Stop Balkanizing the categories!

There seems to be an intense push to reorganize categories, apparently to put all categories in a "tree" structure, and to arrange that a given article is in only one category, that being the lowest appropriate category in the tree. Much of the recent work in this area is being done my new and hard-working contributors, but much of it is wrong. Don't do this.

While there are are topics for which the "bottom-of-the-tree-only" doctrine may be correct, there are topics for which it is most emphatically not. I particularly refer to physics and chemistry.

Here's the scenario: We are trying to make this place an encyclopedia that school-age students will come to for trustworthy information. (Well, many of us are. Others are just filling up the place with pages about what countries have problems with bestiality, what demographic changes are taking place in various countries relating to evangelical Christianity, and how the traffic on Richard Dawkins' web site is doing. I don't care what categories pages like that are in.) But suppose I'm a junior high school student wanting to read about interesting topics in physics. The place to look is the category. One effectively goes "shopping" there, sort of like a shopping mall. One looks for things that might be interesting. "Oh, look. Articles on protons, neutrons, and electrons. Let's take a look." "Oh, look. Lagrangian dynamics. I've always wanted to know how that stuff works." Or I'm in the Chemistry category and see that I can read about Nitric acid.

But we don't have the big shopping lists. We have huge trees of categories and subcategories. I have to go clicking through the tree. This is ridiculous. If I'm looking at the Physics category, the only way I will get to protons is to see the Subatomic Physics category, click on it, then see the Subatomic Particles category and click on it. How am I supposed to know that? And how am I supposed to have the patience to go through all that?

Similarly, in the Chemistry category, I can't see Nitric acid except by clicking on the Acid–base chemistry category and then the Acids category. And to get to the Electromagnetic wave article from the Physics category, I first have to click on the Electromagnetism category. No. Electromagnetic waves, and Maxwell's equations, are fundamental topics in physics.

SamHB (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Agreed. TAR caused the oposite problem, so I'm reluctant to say it, but there is such a thing as too few categories as well. It's okay to have several "leaf" categories, if applicable, or to have a few categories from different "branches". I haven't been closely watching the recategorization efforts lately, but you're right.
This is probably a bad time to bring it up, but I have noticed a few crossovers where there shouldn't be, still. For example, I ran a recursive category check on Technology, and got some strange results. Genocide, Genrikh Yagoda, George Davis, Mental illness, National Park, and even Plant were a few of the pages which showed up under the category "Technology." Perhaps rather than pulling pages out of categories, we should focus on cleaning up the categories themselves, which keeping in mind that multiple categories are sometimes okay.
P.S. You made me go look up Balkanize. :) --David B (TALK) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
There is always a happy medium. Unlike WP, we grow articles at a very slow rate, so few categories at this point may be better. I suggest that when we hit 100 articles in a category, it might be time to adjust it into subcategories. JDano (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
My apologies about that - I mistook the
This category is becoming very large. Please move articles into appropriate subcategories.
template for a call for help. The categories were somewhat difficult to form, anyways.--Abcqwe (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
I think Abcqwe has done good work. Some of these categories are quite large, and they should be split up. Of course, not too many sub-categories should be made, but I think it is easier to find articles if one doesn't have to look in a single cateogry with thousands of articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
I would also like to add my apologies. Like Abcqwe, I saw the large category template so decided i could help by moving things but now i see that it wasn't the best idea. I shall refrain from recategorising pages.
On a side note, would it be useful to briefly describe each sub category page on the sub category page or the main physics page? FredericBernard (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

First, I totally appreciate the hard work that Abcqwe and FredericBernard ‎have done. I'm not denying that in the least, and I apologize if I sounded overly critical. Deciding on a category tree, and creating the categories, is not easy. (I myself don't know how to do it.) My only objection was in taking articles out of the top category, not in putting them into the lower categories.

A dictionary is an enormous book. But it's alphabetized, so you can find things rapidly. And if you just like to browse (perhaps you're a Scrabble player) you can do that too. If you have a dictionary of physics, it's all there, from acceleration to Z-boson. Scroll through the pages with their alphabetized sections, and look at whatever suits your fancy.

I think the "Large category" flag is appropriate for many topics, but is inappropriate for some things, like physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Some categories just list an unwieldy number of very similar things. So, a category of birds, or Civil War battles, very well might benefit from being split up. But the items in physics are very disparate. You might be able to figure out, from the battle of Antietam, that the battle of Bull Run is in there too. But you'd never guess, from angular momentum, that Maxwell's equations is in there too, if you have to search blindly through all the other categories.

All these other categories are great. But please leave things in the main physics category if you think they ought to appear in an "Encyclopedeia of Physics".

SamHB (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

But SamHB, what worth is it when editors do not move pages into subcategories and then the existing categories end up having hundreds or even thousands of articles? I personally think having some subcategories is more navigatable. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
I assume that, by "move into subcategories" you mean list the subcategory in the list at the bottom of the article, and remove the higher category. I'm simply arguing for keeping both, for topics like physics, chemistry, and mathematics. The subcategories are still navigable, if that's the way you like to have the stuff presented. The subcategories are always listed at the top of the category page. You can click on those and explore the tree. My point is that, if you want to see the article on Maxwell's equations, you might not know how to navigate down the tree. But it will be there, under "M". You may have to scroll down a bit, but you will see it. SamHB (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
The problem with that, is that it is basically what TAR was doing. A page on a Glock would be in in the categories Weapons, Firearms, Survivalism, Glocks, Technology, Equipment, Firearms Glossary, and many more. Since it is a Glock, perhaps the "Glocks" category would be right. However, all of those categores do to some extent apply. It's just that everywhere you go, you find the page "glock." If we only do one or two leaf categories and a root category, it would be better. However, it still could get messy. --David B (TALK) 14:36, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
Okay, just an update: I went back through my "contributions" list to see all the chemistry things and physics things I changed and changed the categories back. I think that's the most recats I've done in one hour. Next I think I'll say something on the template. Sorry for the 100-cat mistake.--Nathan--Abcqwe (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
Where is the link posted that is the Portal to Categories? Giving that link higher visibility somewhere will help the page designer as well as the student. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2`

Internet Relay Chat

After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that we start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know who here uses IRC or is interested in doing so, but everyone is welcome, and anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Everyone is welcome to come and chat, or simply "hang out." This can be a great place to collaborate, ask and answer questions, and just chat. If nothing else, visitors to Conservapedia can potentially be sent there to discuss any questions they may have. Of course, this depends on how many people choose to use it in the first place.

The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
The web client can be used (quite easily!) here
I am also making a page detailing the use of the chat channel called Conservapedia:Using IRC
Let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 17:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Template:Infobox Television

I'd like to start including the television infobox template in editing some TV shows, but as it looks right now (I tried including it in a show I was editing and the infobox didn't look that good as it is now), it may need fixing up to make it look similar to the movie infobox. Since I can't do it myself due to the page being locked, would someone else with extended editing privileges be able to fix the TV infobox? Northwest (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (EDT)

Let's avoid infinite blocking

I have noticed that some of the blockers do infinite blocks. This can cause problems down the block potentially.

The average person moves about every 7 years I heard. And most vandals are younger than the average person's age so they probably move more frequently (college students, etc.). Plus, a lot of vandals are loser/drifters probably so they may move even more frequently.

I block for about 5 years. I don't see why people have to block longer.

Any input from blockers would be welcome. Conservative (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

That makes sense for IPs, but not accounts. Most of the accounts that we block need to stay blocked forever, whereas the IP addresses used to create those accounts should not be blocked forever. IP addresses are a different animal, because even static IP addresses eventually get reassigned. The indefinite blocks of bad accounts are common practice on wikis, except wikis run by liberal morons. DMorris (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
When you block accounts, sometimes does it also block the IPs? I seem to recall having to unblock an IP after after someone blocked the persons account even after the account was unblocked. Or was their just overlap and someone may have blocked that IP since the user account was blocked? Conservative (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
Although I see your point regarding some users needing to be permanently banned, speaking as someone who had to fairly recently endure an infinite block on one of the wikis, it also comes at the risk of the mods coming across as people who view themselves as above the law and blocking anyone for even giving criticism for some decisions being made by them (namely, citing how a Complete Monster trope is downright broken and especially protesting the removal of one character due to their actions not being "heinous enough" to qualify despite a lot of those character's actions truly qualifying as heinous.). Had a huge amount of distrust of mods to be honest, due to actually encountering several mods and admins on forums who banned me for "flaming" despite the fact that I was reacting to them flaming, and their not being banned simply because they were a mod (in fact, I distrust them to such an extent that I outright refuse to accept modship or adminship precisely BECAUSE I fear turning out like them), and, not to imply any of you are like that, but the less mods like that and the less opportunities for mods to act like that, the better. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

Potential policy: Conservapedia topic bans/main page talk bans

Looking for feedback on this potential policy: Conservapedia:Topic bans.

I thought this policy might make it easier to manage the website and prevent overly broad bans.

Thanks. Conservative (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

I think that if an editor is clearly not making constructive edits here, they should be blocked. How would we enforce such a ban, and under what circumstances would such a ban be implemented rather than a full block? In my opinion, it might be harder to manage CP with this policy, because we would have to watch more editors much more closely. On the bright side, we could use this topic ban on our good-faith liberal editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
I created this new policy based on feedback from Andy Schlafly via email. I also added a sentence at the end of the policy due to feedback from 1990sguy.
There were Sysops who wanted to take stricter measures with problem editors, but I thought this more surgical approach would be better. Conservative (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
Would you please add Category:Conservapedia Policy to the new policy article? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
OK. I was about to do this anyways. Conservative (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
Unrelated, would you please move Sanctuary Cities redirect to redirect to Sanctuary city? Right now it is a double redirect. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
Two more things: would you please add Category:Conservapedia Policy, rather than Category:Conservapedia, as it is more direct? Also, you have not answered my concern that this new policy will actually make CP harder to manage. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
It sounds like something which could in certain cases be useful. However, I can't see it being regularly used. My main concern is the same as 1990'sguy's. How would this be enforced? If we could get or create a wiki plugin which actually blocked users from editing in pages with certain category tags, this could be a nice thing to have in the toolbox. However, if this will all be done manually, I would say it is probably not a very practical idea. One or two users might be manageable, but if we get 20 "topic banned" users, how would we ever keep track of it all, and make sure no one is doing what they shouldn't?
The only way I can see this being somewhat practical without digital support is a "non-controversial" restriction. People who keep adding a LPoV might be banned from editing anything regarding politics or anything else liberalism has infiltrated. If they want to write a page on how cars are manufactured, then that's fine. However, they would not be allowed to change anything on the "evolution" article.--David B (TALK) 22:10, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

DavidB4, thanks. You gave me an idea on how to better enforce the topic ban. But in most cases, it will probably be the blocker who enforces the topic ban. Conservative (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

So one troll creates 20 sockpuppets and ties the hands of the blocker. We've been thru this before. And all it leads to is the blocker controlling and fighting off his enemy, a fight over a page no nuetral third party wants to go near to contribute to or resolve problems.
Just keep page protect at an advanced level of scrutiny were user has to earn their rights to engage in discussion. Open up the rest to opening editing.
What's needed are committees to hand out tasks and assignments to committee members. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:22, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
Conservative, just a reminder, I have two requests, one unrelated to this topic ban. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

If warranted, an admin could tell other admins about a topic ban via email. But in most cases, it would be enforced by the blocker or by other blockers who notice the topic ban on a user's talk page. Also, if needed down the pike, a page called Conservapedia: List of users with topic bans could be created. Conservative (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

The main purpose of the topic bans is for editor retention purposes. In certain cases, if topic bans were be used instead of a broader block of editing the entire wiki, the editor would be retained rather than permanently lost or lost for an extended period. Conservative (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
Also, a blocker can create a resource such as this: User:Conservative/My topic bans. Conservative (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
It's like being a guidance counsellor, you have to help an editor find his/her/their/its niche, and channel their energies into into it. Some editors may excel at content, other's could have organizational skills serving on a committee to regulate proofreading, quality control, template and page design, dispute resolution, disciplinary action, policy development, etc etc etc. To build a community, you gotta lift the 90/10 rule to allow user interaction and collaboration. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now`

The beauty of the topic ban

Here is the beauty of the topic ban:

A brand new liberal editor joins Conservapedia and begins to posting foolish, liberal tripe on talk pages.

According to Conservapedia:Topic bans, "If an editor is a new editor and has not built up a reputation of quality edits, the topic ban may be imposed quickly if the low quality of his edit/edits merits it." Also, "Editors who receive topic bans may incur them due to their article edits and/or their talk page edits." Also, "For example, such an editor may be asked to refrain from editing political/religious/history articles or various other kinds of articles." Also, "Also, if the matter merely requires an editor to be better educated about a topic, the editor in question may be asked to create an article in draft space. If the draft article is of sufficient quality, it will be moved to Conservapedia article space." In addition, "In particularly egregious cases, where an editor engages in a clear bad faith edit(s), the editor may be banned from Conservapedia for a specified period of time rather than incur a topic ban."

So a new liberal editor who nearly always post liberal tripe to talk pages, can immediately be given a draft page writing assignment or can be told he can only post to non-ideological articles. Since promotion of the leftist narrative is all-important to hard core leftists, this immediately shuts them down.

For example, a militant leftist joins Conservapedia. He can immediately be assigned to create a draft article. For example, User: Hardcoreleftist/Soviet historical revisionism or User: Hardcoreleftist/Decline of the secular left in the 21st century. And if the articles are of good quality, they can be moved to article space. For example, the aforementioned draft articles could be move to Soviet historical revisionism and Decline of the secular left in the 21st century. The possibilities are endless! The left engages in denialism when it comes to radical Islam, so a draft article could be assigned about Growth of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century.

Or if his first post is to a talk page and of low quality, he can be immediately banned.

For the record, I am not against people on the left posting legitimate information in articles or talk pages. I am merely against the willful posting of false/misleading information.

In short, the topic ban is a conservative iron fist in a velvet glove approach to handling dishonest hard core leftist ideologues! Conservative (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

You still gotta keep an eye on them if their intent is to subvert. They figure every one minute trolling is one minute less production of conservative propaganda (their minds are like Hitler, their creative impulses are bent to destroy, not to produce anything lasting). Nothing is to stop them, for example, putting in the 1919 Red Sox roster under 2016 New England Patriots, only proving what deceptive lying little *#@&%es they are - and everything we say about them is true. They are not intelluctual in any sense, they are lost little children, seeking attention by being mischievous. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 14:46, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Cool article

I found a cool article about atheism in the National Post. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

Error

Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Overly long articles

From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as Alger Hiss, Elvis Presley, and Barack Hussein Obama, are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --Anglican (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --Anglican (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by User:FOIA. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--Nathan (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. JDano (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Confession

Maybe things belongs on the community portal, but I know no one reads that, so I'm saying it here:

I'm a liberal. I've vandalized the encyclopedia. I've lied to everyone here.

Okay, so -liberalism? Well, I thought I was almost as far right as one could be, agnostic in regards to macroevolution and global warming. Now, there's denial of complex numbers and relativity? I can't doubt that imaginaries and complexes have some uses in math - I'll doubt the p-adic numbers, maybe, but not relativity. Sure, I've thought that Trump could bring about good things, and that people deserve the right to own guns, and that the Oscars are inane, and that feminists show a double standard, and that vouchers for private schools are a good thing, and that if scientists think religion should survive without government support like private enterprise, then they should stop appealing for government funding themselves and see how useless they are to taxpayers, and that a Christian baker should not be forced to bake a gay-themed wedding cake so long as he still bakes regular cakes for gay people ... but denying relativity, Michelle Obama's womanhood, and re-writing the Bible? I'm just not that conservative.

But vandalism?

Yes - twice. Once just to check response time, under the name Clickyourheels (now my IP is blocked and I need this account to edit at all). The other time, I added a little joke to one of the pages, and it wasn't the Conservative jokes page. Of course, the joke was a fallacious statement. Where is it? Among hundreds of other author biographies no one will ever read. Even worse, the joke isn't funny if you haven't seen WKRP.

And lying?

My name never was Nathan. When I made a "Nathan" e-mail account (nathancp314@gmail.com) to reply to Conservative, I realized the indignity of a fake name. Now I've wasted another slot for someone named Nathan with middle and last initials CP.--Nathan (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

That's big of you to allow bakers to not bake cakes for "marriages" of homosexuals so long as they bake regular cakes for them as customers. So much for "We have the right to refuse service to anyone." You spelled it out yourself: the consequences are that if the bakers do refuse on that basis, they should be "forced" to do even more. That's the kind of argument and rules of jurisprudence we've come to expect from those who live on or orbit "planet gay".
But who are we talking to this time? A user with three? four? accounts whose real agenda is to use them to eventually feign a consensus? Or at least one who spreads the opposition to conservatism among accounts that would have faced a categorical and swift rebuke if presented by one account? I for one have no desire to help you make Conservapedia participate in the cruel shell game that the subtext of your audacious announcement openly bears as an interpretation—nor in the things we can reasonably expect to follow under the designs to which these aforementioned suspicious behaviors already point. VargasMilan (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Religion in America

After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

My feedback

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that evangelical Protestant churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[11]

I hope the helps. Conservative (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Is this article appropriate to cite?

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the Donald Trump achievements article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether this article is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing female genital mutilation on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
  • Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
  • There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
  • That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
  • That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
  • That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
  • The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the Donald Trump achievements article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I think it is an appropriate article to cite. Conservative (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect (the Dawoodi Bohra sect) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in Obamagate timeline have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." JDano (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. Conservative (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted clearly are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, The Hill, wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[12] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[13]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. Conservative (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano

I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in Donald Trump achievements.

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano's objections to Richard Dawkins' health have been adequately answered at Talk:Richard Dawkins' health. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.
On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.
I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the Obama's religion article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.
Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.
Sun Tzu said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.
Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. Conservative (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.
JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.
Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.
When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.
It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.
Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.Conservative (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.
JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. JohnZ (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the Trump Twitter account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So: 1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution. 2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you. 3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. JDano (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Just the facts, ma'am

Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over why Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns here. The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. JDano (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. State Dept. Fact Sheet Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. JDano (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)JDano (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". JDano (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my talk page rather than on this page. JDano (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

policy vs law

JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. What is the difference between policy and law?. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. JDano (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. JDano (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)


JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[14] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.
The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.
Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.
You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. Conservative (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Man if you lost nobs then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. Vive Liberté! 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative was referring to this edit and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

History of FGM in the United States

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. Conservative (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. JDano (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. JDano (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted

It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made several other edits that I reverted because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator. Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, there's no source. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but there MUST be a source.

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add constructive edits to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Edit conflict ;)
JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --David B (TALK) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? JDano (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. JDano (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Lindsey Graham was in on the Operation Zero Footprint coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in Obama war crimes. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

Useful links

Welcome!

Hello, Community Portal, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Community Portal!


Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible

Some cookies to welcome you! 25px
Welcome to Wikipedia, Conservative! I am This lousy T-shirt and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)