Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Archives

Contents 1 ("Pakistan" is a Muslim word.) 1.1 Rant alert! 2 Obama's "Sensational" Comeback 3 Featured articles 4 Pelosi headline 5 Disgraceful video 6 Main Page typo 7 Grammar and Quotation Issues 8 Lesbian Moms 9 Sharon Stone bit 10 Move Requests 11 Biden's Debate Lies 12 Barney Frank headline 13 Error 14 American Gothic 15 NYT + Ayers 16 Vandal: Breadman

("Pakistan" is a Muslim word.)

No more than "France" is a Christian word. As has been pointed out before, Islam and Christianity are religions, not linguistic groups. "Pakistan" is Urdu, I believe--and has its roots not only in "land of the pure" as someone else pointed out, but from the more practical fact that it was derived from an acronym of the regions it borders: Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir. How much more simply can it be stated--Islam is not a language.AliceBG 19:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I know that liberals like to deny the influence of religion anywhere and everywhere, but the truth is that some words have a religious origin. "Pakistan" is one of them.--Aschlafly 19:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, "Pakistan" has religious--actually, it would be far more accurate to say "religious/nationalistic" roots. There's a big gap between that and "Muslim pronounciation." Muslims from France pronounce it one way-Muslims from Nigeria another, Muslims from Sudan yet another, and so on. Thaat's my point. AliceBG 19:41, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

You couldn't be more wrong. As noted on PJR's talk page, this is simply an 'insight' from our dear leader, not a fact. As such, you would be wise to simply accept Schlafly's, and Bulger's, wisdom and actually add something of value to this site. DaneL 19:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Just to throw this out there, how do the people in Pakistan pronounce their country's name when speaking english? Would that not be the correct way to pronounce it?--Able806 22:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Some research:

• The name was coined by a Cambridge-educated Muslim from the region who based it on the Persian for land of the pure.[1][2] So does that make the pronunciation Muslim, Persian, or English?
• According to this Pakistani-American blogger, Obama's pronunciation is correct.

Philip J. Rayment 05:11, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, the word "Pakistan" is a Muslim word, and Obama repeats its Muslim pronunciation, just as the insight on the Main Page has indicated.

However, to claim that Obama's pronunciation is "correct" misses the point, obviously.--Aschlafly 08:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I apologise for interfering, but surely, as PJR just pointed out, the word "Pakistan" is either Persian, English or Muslim. Instead of explaining why you believe the word is Muslim, you simply state that it is. If you have proof, please show us because that would prove that you are correct rather then simply leading us to believe that maybe you are not. Bolly 22:53, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

Well, it appears that the pronunciation is correct, i.e. the pronunciation used by Pakistanis, even if that is not the point. But what is the point? What's so noteworthy about Obama using the correct pronunciation?

And Bolly is correct: simply repeating the claim that the word/pronunciation is Muslim is not evidence that the claim is true, and there's good reason to believe that it's incorrect. Where's your evidence, Andy?

Philip J. Rayment 09:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Pronunciation reflects one's culture, education and sometimes even one's beliefs. Whether you think one pronunciation is "correct" is obviously immaterial when hundreds of millions of people disagree.

I'm not interested in wasting more time trying to convince anyone who is determined not to be convinced. There are plenty of open-minded people out there who welcome insights, and even advance them. The insight as expressed on the Main Page about this is factual and informative. Everyone has a free will to refuse to accept it, so please suit yourself.--Aschlafly 10:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

And I'm not interested in wasting more time trying to research this when you offer no evidence that you claim of it being a Muslim pronunciation is correct, despite being asked to. You say that it is "factual", but plenty of evidence has been offered here that it is not factual, but wrong, and you've offered none to say that it is factual. Philip J. Rayment 10:26, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, PJR, for your commitment to the truth despite ideology. It's a real man who can admit the truth when he sees it.--IanG 11:11, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I am trying to understand your stance. Above you said that "Pronunciation reflects one's culture, education and sometimes even one's beliefs. Whether you think one pronunciation is "correct" is obviously immaterial when hundreds of millions of people disagree.". With that being said do you feel that it is important for people to use correct pronunciation of words? I would expect that you, as an educator, would champion the correct pronunciation of terms. As for hundreds of millions of people, many people in the southern US pronounce nuclear as (NUKE-yoo-lar) instead of (NUKE-lee-ar) so what would be correct, (NUKE-yoo-lar) or (NUKE-lee-ar)? Just because many do something, does not mean that it is correct.--Able806 11:31, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Able806, go tell Merriam-Webster that its primary pronunciation [3] is wrong if you feel that way. But don't continue to talk, talk, talk here or else your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 11:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

The Merriam-Webster link shows that both variations are correct. --DinsdaleP 11:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And, from a technical standpoint, it's not pronounced that way in Urdu. The vowel that Aschlafly insists is "Muslim" is not even in the standard English vowel repertoire (aside from diphthongs) and was not the one Obama used. Let alone the fact that they pronounce the "t" in a different part of their mouths. And what exactly do Hindus in Pakistan pronounce it as? --IPaxton 12:37, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Dictionaries do not dictate which pronunciation is "correct". They simply acknowledge pronunciations which are in common use. So if there are two or three different ways to say a word, they'll list all of them. Note, for example, that Merriam-Webster acknowledges both pronunciations of "nuclear" including the popular but dubious "nucular" pronunciation highlighted by Able806. Usually the most common pronunciation is listed first, but this does not automatically make it the "correct" pronunciation, especially in the case of words or proper nouns which derive from another language and can be pronounced in varying ways in English. Sideways 12:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

On a shocking new [4]page, the esteemed Mr. Schlafly uses the Arabic numeration system instead of the old-fashioned European system. No doubt this is what he was taught as a child. Perhaps he is really an Arabic sympathizer.

LOL. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT) if you dont get the joke, see Arabic numerals--Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

That's witty. Thanks for the good humor, and also the clarifying link showing that "Arabic numerals" is actually a misnomer. That's an educational discussion at its best.--Aschlafly 13:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly is right to be looking into this issue: despite Obama's numerous gaffes and subtle clues to his Muslim heritage, no-one is looking into it. It may not end up being correct, but at least someone has the... uhh... you know :)... to pursue the story.-CMarius 18:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

How about this for an alternate viewpoint, if I may. Let's keep the wall between church and state erected, and stop bickering about his Schrödinger Religion and get back to what the man will do for the country. I can care less if he's an atheist, a catholic, a christian, a baptist, a buddhist, or a muslim. As long as he is willing to work for the people and defend his country, his religion should be a moot point. CodyH 19:24, 01 October 2008 (EST)

Perhaps you couldn't care less about their religion, but a person's religion defines a lot about who they are, and many of us do care about their religion for that reason. Philip J. Rayment 04:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

In addition, CodyH, even if you don't care about Obama's religion, you should care about his honesty.--Aschlafly 07:17, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Rant alert!

I agree with myself in that we shouldn't bash people for their pronunciation.

He pronounced a word differently, big whoop! Some people say "huge" without the "h" sound. I sometimes say "sai-roop" when talking about syrup. Some people pronounce "ruin" the same as "rune".

If you disagree with who he is, then just say you disagree and leave it at that--unless someone asks why. Don't make it your mission to change everyone else's views about him. Didn't you [Aschlafly] say something about there being some huge discrepancies about "Obama Nation"? If there are some discrepancies, then can't we also make the case about the whole book being a "book of lies"? Political beliefs [both liberal and conservative] say that we can.

blahblahblah... just read the first six sentences.

Tact, must remember tact. Umm, I withhold a bunch of my comments that I just want spout off.

Deceit, deceit, deceit.. uhh.. liberal bias in wikipedia.. uhh. I'm being brainwashed. Uhh.. I should sleep now, eh? uhh.. you get my point. The point is, uhh, the point. I'm dull and you can block me if you want. Sorry if I offended anyone here just now. 'tis not how I normally am. Probably because I keep stuff in my head until I can't hold it in much longer.

Is 6% chance a high percentage? Hunh?

I do not recall! o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 22:13, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Putting a little qualifier like "Rant alert!" doesn't make you seem any less whiny. You use sarcasm ("He pronounced a word differently, big whoop!") to try and make some point about how insignificant you find this to be, but why the rant then? Then you said: Some people say "huge" without the "h" sound. I sometimes say "sai-roop" when talking about syrup. Some people pronounce "ruin" the same as "rune"." Correct. And I'm sure if you investigated those fully, you would find they are derived from particular linguistic and etymological differences in the population. Obama's pronunciation happens to be Muslim in origin. That's all the Main Page said. It made no reference to whether that was a good or bad thing. If you want to be paranoid about it, I'm sure there are some Wikipedia articles you could glitz up to show us all how serious you are. PCarson 10:43, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't say that Obama's pronunciation is Muslim in origin. Of his pronunciation, it just says that it's not the normal American one. It also says that the name is Muslim in origin, and even that is a stretch, as the name is a coined word from the early 20th century, based on Persian words for "land of the pure". The only Muslim connection was that the person who coined the name was Muslim. Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Exactly: Muslim origin, Muslim coiner, Muslim speakers, Muslim population, and you're STILL trying to tell me there's no chance Obama is a Muslim? Please, stop guzzling Kool-Aid and open your eyes. PCarson 17:03, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

PCarson, get your terms correct. "He pronounced a word differently, big whoop!" is not sarcasm. I'm just pointing out how people are quick-to-criticize. I think a befitting quote goes something like this:

"Why are you so concerned about removing a speck of dirt from your neighbor's eye, when you have a log in yours?"

o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 14:16, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's "Sensational" Comeback

I'm not surprised to see that Obama's hesitation and multiple instances of "uh" is considered "sensational" and newsworthy here, unlike Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. I suppose that there's nothing sensational the latter's performance being so appalling that Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker said, "Palin's recent interviews ... have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league".[5] Nope, I guess that won't be mentioned here. --DinsdaleP 10:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Did Palin also make a somewhat disparaging remark about a bracelet? Also, I'm not sure why you call Kathleen Parker "conservative". I doubt your comment is based on a review of her work and positions.--Aschlafly 10:51, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I think Obama's bracelet-response during the debate was faltering, and had a "me-too" tone that didn't play well - if it was also "disparaging" I guess I missed that aspect. You're right about my not having reviewed Kathleen Parker's work and positions to judge her to be a conservative columnist myself. I was using Fox News as my source (link above), and they seem to be pretty consistent with Conservapedia in terms of who the consider conservative or not. That said, do you yourself believe that Palin has been doing a good job in her unscripted interviews? --DinsdaleP 11:04, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Also, at your suggestion I went past the Fox News reference and checked Parker out myself. She's a regular columnist at TownHall.com, one of the approved conservative references sources for news stories here on CP. The line I mentioned above from the Fox story is from her September 29th column titled "The Palin Problem". Here's more of the context that the quoted line above appears in:

"Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League. No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there."

This is a bright, articulate conservative woman commenting on someone she sees as a fellow bright, articulate conservative woman, who unfortunately has been summoned to perform at a tier she is not ready for, and who is not handling that inability well. I have no personal dislike for Palin, but I resent the idea of someone as unqualified as she is being our president if something happens to McCain. --DinsdaleP 12:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to point out that besides Townhall.com, Parker also writes for The National Review which Conservapedia identifies as one of the three most important conservative periodicals. --Saxplayer 13:22, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Featured articles

First time CP user, here! Are featured articles locked to prevent vandalism that is likely to be focused on them, or are their locked status/featured article candidacy both based on their level of quality, and they don't need any more editing? (Note, I was listed as "Avenger" previously. I didn't know the rule regarding first initial/last name, so I'm just updating this edit.) PCarson 10:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

There is no policy to lock featured articles. Locking is usually done to stop or prevent vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Pelosi headline

Why does the main page say that Pelosi is trying to funnel this money? The "Republicans" in Congress were accusing her of leading to the bill's defeat just yesterday! I agree that that the 100,000 dollars of PAC money being given to her husband is shameful and a really bad example of power corrupting absolutely, but you can't tell me that McCain isn't pushing for this bill even stronger than Pelosi is. I know the headline isn't marketed here as being the whole story, but maybe the point should be made that the leadership and presidential candidates of BOTH parties are doing a real disservice to true conservative values. PCarson 13:43, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree, but the point of the headline is to highlight the fact that Pelosi is for taking taxpayer money and giving it to unworthy causes. She needs to be removed from office, along with the other corrupt members, whether Democrat or Republican. Karajou 13:46, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree too - the story is important and Pelosi should be ashamed (she's a miserable Speaker, too), but there's no need to have a headline that inserts falsehoods about her trying to channel the $700 billion bailout fund to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nothing is gained, and credibility is lost. --DinsdaleP 14:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

She is part of that bailout problem. She was there when it was proposed by Bush; she was part of the negotiations; several members of her party added earmarks to it (aka pork) totaling in excess of $70 million; and when this bailout failed Monday, she blamed Republicans for it, so clearly she was for the bailout as it was. Karajou 14:07, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

No one is saying she's not behind the prior or current versions of the bailout bill. The falsehood is the statement "while Nancy Pelosi tries to funnel $700 billion of taxpayer money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". That is not what the bailout bill calls for, and since that connection is not mentioned in the article either it's just a distortion of the truth added for effect. The story about funneled PAC money is important enough to stand on its own without such distortions. Since McCain was for Monday's version of the bill, would you agree with saying "McCain wants to funnel $700 Billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"? --DinsdaleP 14:13, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes I would agree that McCain is for it; but I'm with the 80-90 percent of the American people who don't want it, and I'm glad it's been defeated. Karajou 14:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay, so why not pull the part of the headline that's inaccurate and unrelated to the actual story? --DinsdaleP 14:42, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgraceful video

This disgraceful video should be stopped. It is a hideous example of paranoia and typically delusional left-wing scaremongering. I intend to start a campaign against it and its ilk - Sarah Palin is a fine candidate and this kind of propaganda is not only ridiculous and unjustified, but should be banned. RobCross 00:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

It's scaremongering, sure, but McCain's health and Sarah Palin's ability to deal with Russia are legitimite concerns. If the events of the first part of the video do happen, will Palin be able to handle it? Personally, I have yet to be convinced.--Frey 08:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I certainly think more than just liberals have their concerns about the Republican's VP nomination - her appalling performances in the two Couric interviews gave me no confidence that she could become 'Leader of the Free World' at any time in her career. Perhaps she'll prove us all wrong tonight. BenHur 11:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I saw a flash video along those lines back in 2000 about what would happen in the Middle East if George W. Bush won the presidency. In short, it said that the Middle East conflicts would erupt into World War III, destroying much of the world. This was a totally serious video from some nutjobs on the left. Ban these sorts of videos? No way! Let everyone see just how kooky the left has become. It will only turn people off from their side. Jinxmchue 17:45, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Main Page typo

"Dutchman Martin Rynja, a publisher in the Britain " - please remove 'the' before Britain. BenHur 11:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks. --DeanS^talk 11:39, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Grammar and Quotation Issues

"The U.S. Senate Wednesday night approved a $700 billion financial-rescue plan that funds the biggest government intervention in the markets since the Great Depression. The package now goes to the House of Representatives, which rejected an earlier version of the measure. The bill, a bipartisan effort to restore confidence in the nation's banking system, passed 74-25 with 41 Democrats and 33 Republicans voted voting for it. The two presidential nominees, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, returned from the campaign trail to cast votes for the plan." In addition, this is surrounded by quotation marks the main page, implying that it is a direct quote from the cited article. However, the text is not in the cited article, and it doesn't quite seem to be a match. Perhaps the link no longer goes to the original article? We need to either remove the quotation marks or cite the original article. (We should NOT remove the quotation marks unless we are sure it was not originally quoted from a different article - it could still be a quote, just not from the cited article.) If it is indeed a quote, and the error noted was in the original, then the original should probably be maintained, with a (sic) notation added. --Hsmom 13:20, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Lesbian Moms

Lesbians give five tips for propagating their lifestyle in the public school culture, starting with "Be out!" I think this headline is pretty misleading about the content of the cited article. The article is about how one lesbian mom (not "lesbians") is planning to address the issue as a parent sending her son to school. It does not state whether the child is going to a public school or a private school. In addition, the tips given are pretty low-key. For example, the author warns against "coming across as one of those over-privileged moms demanding special treatment for her child". If we use sensational headlines for rather mundane articles, we lose credibility. --Hsmom 13:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

As I recall, the link contained comments by more than one. Also, it must be a public school because it references a "PTA".

As to your thinking it's "low-key", you're welcome to your opinion but other readers are welcome to conclude otherwise.--Aschlafly 13:34, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Re-reading the article, I can't see quotes from other people; it is all the opinion of one author. (There are a handful of comments from readers - is this what you were referring to?) The reference to a PTA doesn't, for me, imply public school. PTAs affiliated with the national organization can be set up at public or private schools. In addition, the term "PTA" is often used generically for a school's parent association, even if it is not affiliated with the national PTA organization. (Aschlafly, I'm assuming your kids haven't been to public school, right? So you may not be aware of this generic usage.) Since the author's child is only just starting kindergarten, and the article was published in early September, I believe she is most likely using "PTA" generically. Most schools, whether public or private, have some sort of parent association. I don't have a problem with this article being on the main page. I just think the headline is not accurate. It's probably more accurate to say One lesbian mom gives five tips for working with her child's school, starting with "Be out!" Of course, that's not as sensational. --Hsmom 14:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Sharon Stone bit

Did you really need to put the title of the X-rated movie? Just because you shouldn't look at it, doesn't make people curious about what it is. "Don't push the red button" or "Caution! Wet paint" seem to have the opposite effect. Can't we just say that she starred in an X-rated film? o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 14:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Especially as she has been in quite a few films. --Hsmom 14:18, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

A much bigger point, Basic Instinct is not rated X... It was rated NC-17 in it's original cut, and recut to gain an R rating for general release. More to the point, the MPAA has no movies rated X because the X rating is no longer active in their system. In 1990 they switched to NC-17. They failed to trademark the X rating (or maybe they couldn't because it's a letter, I don't remember which) so producers of pornography started latching onto in and using it without the MPAA's permission. To avoid conflict, the MPAA discontinued the use of it. NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree that there is a case that the name of the movie could have been omitted, but it is probably Stone's most (in)famous role and the one she is most associated with. The quibble over whether the term 'X-rated' is applicable is just liberal literalism. In most countries the movie was given an "adult only" certificate of some kind and as different classifications are used in different countries X-rated is an accepted term for obscene, sexually explicit, or vulgar material. An NC-17 rating in the US or 18 rating in the UK is adult only and therefore equivalent to the umbrella term of 'X-rated'. BrianCo 16:27, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

No, it's not, nor does it have anything to do with Liberal anything. The MPAA is a board that assigned trademarked name protection to films. Other countries have different systems, but in America, the MPAA rating represents the opinion of the board as to how the film is classified. Therefore, the film was not rated X, the film was never rated X, and the film will never be rated X. This was specifically chosen to infer that Basic Instinct was a pornographic movie (an argument which has merit). However, the official rating is "R/NC-17" and should be reported as such. By the logic following this, I can claim that any movie was rated X because X is a meaningless term in America. Anyone can assign the term X to their movie. NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 16:48, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

No one was fooled by the "NC-17" rating when it came out - not filmmakers, studios, theater owners or moviegoers. Everyone knew it was the "new X" and it was the death of a movie if it got the rating and wasn't cut to get an "R" rating. Jinxmchue 17:40, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberals typically adopt an over-literal approach when trying to disparage Conservative values. Please read the dictionary definitions for X-rated; it is an accepted term that implies sexually-explicit or graphically violent scenes and does not necessitate an explicit certification from the MPAA to qualify. The X-rating was for movies with content unsuitable for minors, just because the X-rating was superceded by NC-17 doesn't mean that the term can no longer be used. Hard-core pornography was never classified as X-rated as the MPAA which would not even issue a certificate for that. Although some commercial pornographers adopted the term to make their products seem somehow more outré that does not mean that the term is no longer valid. In effect NC-17 is equivalent to the older X-rating as both were the most extreme rating in their system. Although Conservapedia is a US-based web-site it has a global audience and insisting that the movie be labelled with its US classification is extremely parochial. The breaking news items cannot be comprehensive in dealing with their subject matter, they require a certain amount of short-hand terminology to keep them concise. By referring to the movie as X-rated, readers in all English-speaking countries will have an understanding of the meaning. Further belaboring of the issue here will be construed as trolling. BrianCo 18:16, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

You'd have a point, except that the film was rated R, not NC-17. I think it would be most accurate to replace the reference to the rating with the term "sexually explicit", which no one will be able to contradict. Reynard 18:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

The movie was cut so as to achieve an R-rating in the USA. In the rest of the world it was released uncut and was given an 18 (equivalent to X-rating) certificate. BrianCo 18:37, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

But the US rating is irrelevant even in its cut version the movie still contains nudity, sex and violence. The MPAA rating that the movie was issued with is immaterial. Dictionary definitions already accept X-rated as covering sexually explicit material. It is not necessary to spell out the details. BrianCo 18:45, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

But you'd think that, as a web site that ostensibly considers itself an encyclopedia, the facts would matter. If the movie was released as R (or NC-17), referring to it as anything else is not just non-encyclopedic, but just wrong. "A trustworthy encyclopedia" that knowingly posts something incorrect has no credibility.--KathrynMonroe 18:52, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Not only are you trolling but you obviously haven't read my previous comments. The term X-rated is independent of the MPAA certification. Period. BrianCo 19:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you're going to call any R-rated movie containing sex and nudity "X-rated", well that's a large, large number of mainstream movies. Reynard 23:29, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

BrianCo, although you make a good argument, it's not good enough. In Australia, "X" is a specific rating that is not the same as "R", and the movie concerned would not be rated "X". Philip J. Rayment 04:24, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Move Requests

I notice that there are a number of articles in [[Category:Move_requests]]. Is there someone willing to address these, or is there some way I can take care of them? I don't believe I have the ability to change page titles, merge content, or move/delete pages. -DrSandstone 15:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

You can link to categories without categorising the page by typing [[:Category:Move requests]]:Category:Move requests

I have a page for listing needed moves, which also has a place to mark when the links to the page have been updated. It was intended for renamings account the Manual of Style change to lower-case names, but can also be used for any renaming that there would be no dispute over. If, on the other hand, there might be disagreement about a name change, that should be discussed and agreed upon on the article's talk page first.

Anybody can merge content, however. It's just a matter of cutting from one page and pasting on another (assuming the destination is not locked).

Philip J. Rayment 04:15, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Biden's Debate Lies

No equal billing for Palin's? How trustworthy. --DinsdaleP 11:21, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Palin's what? She didn't lie, Biden did. Is it possible you're referring to her misstatements or the incorrect name she gave for the general in Afghanistan? Those don't count as lies. Mcliff 14:17, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

What she said about Afghanistan and elsewhere in the debate went beyond "misstatement". I don't suppose it would be considered a reliable source around here, but factcheck.org has a lengthy list of debate falsehoods for both Biden and Palin.--Frey 17:15, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

My point was along the lines of Frey's response. If we're going to call misstatements lies, then call them that way consistently when either candidate does it. Otherwise, apply some fact-checking and call them for what they are, whether mistakes, misunderstandings or just plain lies. --DinsdaleP 23:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

No, no, you're missing the point. Biden has 36 years of Senate "experience". Palin doesn't come from the same world as he does, she's younger, and she shouldn't be held to the same standard. Biden has more years in Congress than Obama and McCain combined and he's still making these, um, "gaffes" as the media calls them. Please. When the bottom half of the conservative ticket has more experience than the top of the liberal ticket, then maybe you're problem isn't with Palin, it's some dissatisfaction with the deceitful candidates the liberals nominated Mcliff 09:21, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

It's because of Palin's "executive experience" that I don't want her as VP. When she started as mayor of Wasilla the town had a long-term debt of zero, and when she was done they carried a debt service balance of over $20 million for a town of only around 7400 people. She incompetently rammed the sports complex construction through before making sure the land rights were fully secured, and it's cost the town $1.2 million in unnecessary legal and interest fees. Tax cuts followed by irresponsible spending leading to an onerous debt for her successors to deal with - sounds a lot more like the continuation of the policies of George W. Bush than "change". At least the ice rink has heated seats for the hockey moms. --DinsdaleP 11:32, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Barney Frank headline

I'm no fan of the way this headline is written, because it seems to imply that all deregulation is bad and inherently involves cronyism, when in fact it only operates that way when Democrats take the lead. This is the key problem of the liberal's economic machinations: They're so bipolar and misguided that they only seek deregulation as a mean's of helping their friends, and push for nationalization in hopes of bailing out those same friends. Shameful. Mcliff 10:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

My problem with it is that it needs to be clarified that "partner" refers to his gay lover. Jinxmchue 17:22, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thank you! Jinxmchue 18:21, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Error

The Berg/Obama headline is wrong; it's just a rumor. See [6] AlbertT 10:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that we simply take your liberal BLOG'S word for it on this important issue?!?! I know nothing about who runs that site, but I know that the owner of this site is a succesful attorney who is the general counsel for what is, arguably, the most important physicians group in the country. He would have to be pretty imcompetent to allow the item on the front page to stay up as long as it has if it was incorrect, so pardon me if if I choose the word of Andy Schafly over some random blog.KevinG 10:43, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm thinking AlbertT is some wayward RW drone sent to dry and fog up CP's good record on unmasking liberal "hijinks" (they call lies "gaffes", so let's make their other crimes seem cute, eh?). If you're going to try and crash Conservapedia's stories into memory holes, then please, please, make sure you're using a credible source. Ugh, maybe liberals are the reactionary ones. Mcliff 11:01, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

As AlbertT said, "obamalies.com", which appears to be Berg's own site, has stated that the ruling has not yet been made. Regardless, the document cited on the headline (specifically the first page) does not contain the judge's signature. The headline is therefore premature. Kallium 12:22, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This is very typical it seems. An error on the main page is pointed out, and it is completely ignored, with only parodists responding. I would like to think that there is someone in a position of authority on the site who actually cares that a statement on the main page is completely untrue. But I guess posting information that espousing a particular viewpoint is more important than the truth. So be it. SamuelO 17:37, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

And as long as we're pointing out errors, the statement that Biden doesn't know the difference between the West Bank and Gaza is wrong. The elections he was referring to in 2006 were held in both Gaza and the West Bank, it was in 2007 that Hamas expelled Fatah from Gaza. So if he made an error, it was saying "The West Bank" not "The West Bank and the Gaza Strip", which is hardly an egregious mistake. If you guys ever linked to anything other than uninformed bloggers you might not make these mistakes. I mean, why does something that bills itself as trustworthy constantly use blogs (who have zero accountability) as sources? You do know that anyone (and I do mean anyone) can write anything in a blog, right? SamO 18:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

American Gothic

Is it just me or do Palin & McCain look unusually thin in that picture? It's unusual to see him with a pitchfork too!  ;-) Sideways 12:52, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

NYT + Ayers

Fantastic article. It is just awesome to see NYT reduced from prominence to a liberal tabloid.--Jpatt-- 13:54, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Vandal: Breadman

Someone please block User:Breadman. See e.g. Conservapedia authors. -Golfpro 21:45, 5 October 2008 (EDT)