Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

We have moved some of the material formerly on this page over to Conservapedia:Community Portal. Please try to have general discussions there, and leave this page for its stated, but all-to-often violated, purpose of discussing improvements to the main page. We can do it! SamHB 17:14, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Archive Index

Contents

Landrieu Item

It may be worth noting that Landrieu was very much a Blue Dog Democrat and that even with her support of Keystone XL, she was soundly beaten because of her links through the party to Hussein Obama. He's toxic and none of them can get away. Nhodgson 22:20, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Popular articles at Conservapedia

The current view count is led by:

ArticlePage views
Homosexual Agenda6,700,715
Atheism5,582,034
Barack Hussein Obama2,734,448
Adolf Hitler2,255,249
Wikipedia2,150,728
Muslim agenda of the Obama administration2,054,564
Counterexamples to Relativity1,998,699
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia1,550,956
Conservative Bible Project1,524,396

I suggest that we pare back the list on the left column to just these or at most to the top 25 articles. A present the list seems to be the favorite articles of a few administrators rather than a list representing the page views of our readers. This creates a mis-impression of our reader's interests. Thanks, Wschact 12:37, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Rounding out the top 25 would be:

ArticlePage views
Sarah Palin1,078,400
Liberal1,078,002
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer781,045
Homosexuality and Parasites780,921
Atheism and obesity779,023
Homosexuality658,817
Evolution656,228
ObamaCare610,019
United States Presidential Election, 2008579,521
Joseph Biden575,876
World famous paintings509,483
George W. Bush471,628
List of dictators442,356
Abortion426,857
Global warming426,511
Democratic Party420,749

It is very strange that some of our top 25 articles are missing from the list, and there are a number of articles on the list that are not in our top 25. Could someone with editing rights on main page left please fix this? Thanks, Wschact 12:49, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Interesting suggestion, but insight is obviously not a popularity contest. The list of most-visited pages is already automatically compiled and readily available. The most noteworthy popular pages should be a different list.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 27 November 2014 (EST)
Some of the articles view counts such as Homosexuality and Parasites are the result of clickbots. There are no good reasons to have the enemies of Conservapedia dictate which articles are featured on the main page due to their view counts listed at the bottom of their pages. Furthermore, some of the articles have underestimates of their view counts due to the articles being temporarily deleted. For example, the evolution and Richard Dawkins articles are underestimated by about 500,000 page views if memory serves. Conservative 15:59, 28 November 2014 (EST)

You're right. Insight is not a popularity contest. But the header above the list says "Popular articles at Conservapedia". So that title succumbs to the "popularity contest" mentality. I would suggest that the title be changed to something like "Our Most Insightful Articles", or "Conservapedia's Best Articles" or "Flagship Articles" or something like that. There also ought to be a way for people to see, for better or worse, which articles are popular in terms of page views. As Andy says above, this is accessible under Special:PopularPages. Perhaps there ought to be a note telling people where to find it. Perhaps, after the "Most Insightful Articles" list, there should be a note along the lines of "You can see our most popular articles here. Then we can get the best of both worlds.

I would also suggest that any listing of our "most insightful articles" be pruned more carefully than the present list. One interloper that comes to mind is the Humor about atheism and evolution page. It is absurd, and gives all of us a bad name. It has pictures of a pony, a bear, and a "flying kitty". That may have been funny once, but it has long outlived its humor value. Furthermore, it is locked. A page that is locked can't possibly be considered "the best of the public"! Now some pages are admittedly vandalism magnets, but I think people are overreacting. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

SamHB, what are your thoughts related to the social science data contained in this article: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Conservative 01:05, 29 November 2014 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. In order for the list to be effective, two changes should be made: 1) the list should be shortened to 10 or at most 25 items. 2) There should be an objective criteria for inclusion on the list. It should not be up to one or two people to curate the list based on which articles they find most interesting or which they have written. Thanks, Wschact 07:22, 7 December 2014 (EST)


Archiving this talk page

There are a number of people who contribute to this talk page, but don't read it every day. Accordingly, it may be best if it is archived on a monthly or bimonthly basis instead of the recent shift to moving items (about improving the main page) to the archives very quickly. Once an item is in the archives, other editors do not feel free to add to the discussion. So, the quick archiving of this talk page closes off debate prematurely. I would like to learn what other editors think about the frequency of archiving this page. Thanks, Wschact 07:03, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Sorry to step on your toes about archiving your main page ideas. I did it because it didn't look like people were contributing to the topic anymore on the main page talk page. I will restore your post to the main page talk page. Conservative 12:47, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Singapore stands up to the homosexual agenda

See here and here. A-mei is a well-known singer in Taiwan, China, and other Chinese-speaking countries. PeterKa 10:21, 12 July 2014 (EDT)

Pornographic information and profanity on Wikipedia

On Wikipedia's article about the World Cup match between Brazil and Germany in which Brazil lost 1 to 7, Wikipedia contained the following quote under their Society section: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as "Young Brazilians get f*cked by entire German Soccer Team" were uploaded.[66]" The link to the page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_vs_Germany_(2014_FIFA_World_Cup)#Society I protested that Wikipedia is in theory an encyclopedia and thus this sort of profanity and content ought to be removed, especially when you consider the fact that children might see this kind of content. After trying to edit it out, I was banned for an "edit war." It would be appreciated if we could publicize this content and get it removed.

Gayer than thou: Kenya and Pakistan

These two countries have the most Google searches for gay porn.[1]

Islam

The main page right item "Losses in Midterms for Candidates Who Supported Islamists" is very troubling and can be viewed as religious prejudice. First, the only Muslim member of Congress was re-elected. Second, the Tea Party website cited by the item makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists". Finally, there is a big difference between the set of people who claim Islam as their religion and the set of people who would be described as anti-American Islamic extremists. Failing to follow such a distinction makes the item misleading and unworthy of Conservapedia. Thanks, Wschact 16:07, 13 November 2014 (EST)

You wrote: "makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists"". Why are the claims questionable? Conservative 18:56, 13 November 2014 (EST)
The one thing (if not others) that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, former Senator Scott Brown and former Florida Governor Charlie Crist have in common is that they all love the United States and oppose anti-American Islamic extremists. There is ample evidence to show this and the cited item does not do a convincing job of demonstrating the contrary. There are reasons why people did not vote for them (e.g., raised my taxes, carpetbagger from MA, or flipped flopped between the Republican and Democratic party), but being pro-Islamic extremist/pro-terrorist was not a factor. Thanks, Wschact 20:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)
Your response wasn't helpful in terms of indicating why the material in the article was questionable. For example, why isn't the material on Crist in the article accurate?Conservative 21:36, 13 November 2014 (EST)
In addition, in terms of analyzing voting decisions it can be done at a corporate/segment/individual level. And in some geographic areas, the Islam issue is more of a hot potato due to larger than average Muslim/Jewish populations within the larger population in question (In Dearborn, Michigan where there is a large Muslim population for example, some Muslims stoned some Christians), the mix of liberal/conservative/nationalistic/religious composition of the populace, etc. Another example: Florida has a lot of pro-Israel/Jewish voters so the Islam issue could be more of a hot potato issue within a segment of the Florida population. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS makes the Islam issue be more of a political hot potato issue. Conservative 00:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

The main page right item, "America's National Cathedral to Host First Muslim Prayer." is another objectionable note on the same theme. The Tea Party webpage referenced by the item seems to approve of the move noting that it is an important step in Protestant-Muslim relations. My concerns are that the National Cathedral in Washington DC, should not be called "America's National Cathedral" because it is really a house of worship for just one denomination. (For example, there is a beautiful cathedral for the Roman Catholics, and very nice large churches in DC for the Methodists, Christian Scientists, Mormons, and Greek Orthodox faiths.) I think that it is nice that different religions get together and encourage each other to learn more about their religions. This whole thing is part of a trend in Main Page Right to make it sound as though there is something alarming going on with Islam in America. Perhaps our time would be better spent uploading photos of these churches and adding to the substantive articles of CP instead of the drum beat of Islam-related MPR items. Thanks, Wschact 21:07, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Franklin Graham didn't think it was nice. He said it was “sad to see a church open its doors to worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible.”
And Ann Coulter noted that in this last election, "Republicans swept everything from U.S. senator to substitute-part-time-dog catcher." So maybe it would be best if you started dancing to the beat of the conservative drum, because conservativism is obviously what American people have demanded of their leaders. VargasMilan 11:03, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Evidently Franklin Graham doesn't realize that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, so that seems like more of an argument for improving his and others' reading comprehension. RedG 13:55, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Maybe he's read about some contradictions you haven't. You aren't even aware that Christians don't worship a "god", but rather the supreme God, maker of all things.VargasMilan 14:09, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Yes, and Muslims worship the same deity. The meaning of "god" is "something that is worshiped", and the word a corruption of the pagan word "gaut", which was some deity or another (it's not entirely clear what) of the Germanic tribes. It is therefore entirely correct to refer to the Abrahamic god is just that, a god. RedG 19:04, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Perhaps in your fantasies you are being responsive and recounting correct and well-reasoned information. The reality is very different. VargasMilan 09:46, 17 November 2014 (EST)
Are you disputing the etymology of the word "god", or its use in the English language? RedG 16:26, 17 November 2014 (EST)
@RedG: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I'm particularly bothered at the "internet psychiatry" of characterizing your writing as "your fantasies", and that "reality" is different. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Dear VargasMilan, if you can accept the notion that Methodists and Baptists worship the same "supreme God" then you can accept the notion that Muslims and Catholics can also worship that same "supreme God." (You know, the one described in the Old Testament.) Similarly, the big house of worship built by the Catholics in Washington DC deserves just as much respect as the one built by the Methodists or the one built by the Mormons or any other denomination. There is no establishment of religion in the United States, and the government treats all religions equally. So just because one denomination's church (which is a very impressive building in an impressive location) is called the "National Cathedral" does not make it any more "official" than any of the other large houses of worship in Washington DC. (By the way, its official name is "Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington", and not "National Cathedral".) Wschact 15:46, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Your user name looks like Andy's, but you behave far differently. You talk like somebody who's not aware of his surroundings. Some religions lead to disaster. Some to persistent agitation incompatable with the peace that is the prerequisite for prosperous living. VargasMilan 20:10, 20 November 2014 (EST)
@VargasMilan: Is this a joke? Are you trying to imply that Wschact is a sockpuppet of Andy? Are you implying that Andy practices sockpuppetry on his own wiki? The similarities between the names are an "a" and an "sch". Their editing content is worlds apart. And I can assure you that I have had email discussions with both of them, and they are most definitely not the same person. I don't know what to make of the "not aware of his surreoundings" business. SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)
Yes, some actions in the name of religion lead to disaster. Do read what Catholics did to any number of people (Jews, Muslims, people perceived to be witches or otherwise worshiping other deities) during the Black Death, you won't find any such occurrences in Georgian or Armenian Christendom, the Muslim world, India, China... people have done monstrously atrocious things in the name of pretty much every religion that's ever existed, looking at the most extreme examples generally isn't the best way to determine what the typical adherent believes and does. RedG 22:40, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Thousands of Europeans Take to the Streets to Drive Out Islam

Tell me, is it now Conservapedia policy to support soccer hooligans just because they are anti Islam? Because there is no doubt these people are criminal scum who have made many more people than Muslims victims, including many 100s of deaths. After spending a week condemning rioting in the USA you support it in Europe. Can someone with some understanding please remove this article.--Tomqua 15:52, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Why is their "no doubt"? Please provide evidence of these 100s people killed by these individuals.
Second, reporting on an event is not necessarily in support of an event. For example, if the front page reports on ISIS attacking the Iraqi Kurds, that doesn't mean that Conservapedia is in favor of ISIS attacking the Kurds.
Third, my guess is that these soccer hooligans are not conservative, devout Christian Europeans, but non-religious, liberal Europeans. It is the secular left that is known for their unruly mobs. So if these mobs are made up of violent individuals as you claim, they are probably non-religious leftists. Conservative 16:41, 1 December 2014 (EST)
[2][3]. That is over 100 I can come up with without even thinking. Being involved in soccer hooliganism is a crime, in every nation on the planet so there is "no doubt".--Tomqua 16:46, 1 December 2014 (EST)

You said these specific hooligans caused hundreds of deaths. We both know that this was a claim that you did not support. You should not have made it.

Next, Vox Day predicts that the Muslims will be driven out of Europe. This may happens due to worsening economic conditions and culture clash, but I tend to agree with Eric Kaufmann who said:

"Ethnicity and race may succumb to liberal modernity, but committed religious populations cannot be assimilated to liberal secularism fast enough to compensate for their demographic advantage in a world of plunging fertility and growing migration. In the end, it is a battle between religious fertility on the one hand, and, on the other, religious decline through the 'assimilation' of religious offspring into secularism. This paper argues that the weakness of secularism and a widening secular-religious fertility gap points toward a religious victory...

The principle of tolerating and 'celebrating' diversity is a corollary of postmodern relativism which opens up space for antimodern religious 'diversities' to take root. If they are demographically-powerful religious movements like Islamism or evangelical Chrisianity, they will exploit this weakness to progressively erode the hegemony of western secular humanism....

In the Europe of tomorrow, immigration and religious fertility will increase the proportion of committed Muslims and Christians, many from the developing world. It may seem fanciful to imagine a moral conservatism uniting white and nonwhite Christians as well as Muslims against 'secular humanists'. However, a version of this process has occurred in the United States, and it can be argued that the cocktail of cultural relativism, secular exhaustion and demographic change is even more potent in Europe than America. The division between native ethnic groups and immigrant groups is currently more important in Europe, but as the Muslim and religious Christian minorities grow, they will become as important for conservative politicians as the religious Hispanics of America whom the Republicans have so assiduously courted. At some point, it will make more electoral sense for European conservatives to appeal to a trans-ethnic coalition of moral conservatives than it will to stress anti-immigrant themes and ethno-nationalism. The liberal-left will find it extremely difficult to craft a defense of secularism given its investment in cultural relativism, the exhaustion of its secular religions, and its laissez-faire attitude to demographic change.

Standing back from the fray, we can think of demography as the achilles heel of liberalism."[4]

Kaufmann also said:

"I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[5] Conservative 17:01, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Agreed, as for Mr Day however, is he the same Vox Day that makes A rhetorical case for segregation?"[6]--Tomqua 17:06, 1 December 2014 (EST)
I am not a segregationalist. Second, Europe has a history of intolerance and disharmony and economic instability is just fuel for the fire. Here are some examples: The Spaniards drove out Muslims in their country in the 1400s and also drove out the Jews. Many people fled Europe due to religious discrimination in the past. There is currently white, non-religious population flight out of London in an increasingly ethnic religious population in London. Atheism/agnosticism are secular religions and the economic future of Europe does not look bright. History may repeat itself. Conservative 17:23, 1 December 2014 (EST)
You're right, and the security situation is not bright also. The EU and Russia seem to be on a collision course. The seeds of a European cold war have already been sown.--Tomqua 17:28, 1 December 2014 (EST)

The economic future of Europe looks gloomy and Russia will probably stay about the same as a global power for the foreseeable future.[7] The USA has a lot of problems and 17 trillion and debt, but it has a history of dynamism and bouncing back. The fast growth of Hispanic evangelicals in the USA is a positive thing given the history behind the Protestant work ethic and economic dynamism.[8] [9] In short, I am pessimistic about the economic future of Europe for the foreseeable future and the jury is still out on the future of the USA, but I am hopeful. If Europe is rechristianized due to religious immigration, it could bounce back in the long term. Secular Europe is not sustainable in terms of its demography and economics. Conservative 18:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I think I am going to bow out of future main page talk discussions due to demands on my time and my current priorities. Conservative 18:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Conservapedia news

I guess this one.[10] Which anti-atheism group by the way, or is it a mystery?--Tomqua 03:17, 8 December 2014 (EST)

Wrong guess. It is the atheism and arrogance article. The anti-atheism group which is going to highlight the article this week is a mystery at this juncture, but the veil of mystery will be lifted sometime this week. :) Conservative 10:09, 8 December 2014 (EST)

Over 720 thumbs up in 10 hours

In the last 10 hours, Conservapedia's atheism and arrogance article has received over 720 thumbs up from the fans of the Freedom From Atheism Foundation.

Dwight Weatherford wrote in response: "...atheists...want tolerance and respect on their terms without giving it. This country was never founded to be religious free, it was founded on the principle that a citizen can CHOOSE their religion not be forced into one denomination. The constitution never gave you the right to not be offended."

Brenda Golden wrote in response to the article: "They say there is no proof that God exists but when God opens the book of life will he find proof of them?"

Over 1,300 thumbs up

The atheism and arrogance article got over 1,300 thumbs up from the fans of the Freedom From Atheism Foundation.

How many thumbs down?--Tomqua 17:19, 10 December 2014 (EST)
To give a thumbs down, an atheist would be reasonably expected to show that that atheist community is humble. No such proof and evidence was given! No atheists washing the feet of others. Nothing! Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. On the other hand, there is proof and evidence that atheism/atheists are arrogant. See: Atheism and arrogance
What proof and evidence is there that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that there is plenty of evidence that Christianity is true. See: Evidence for Christianity Conservative 17:46, 10 December 2014 (EST)
So, out of so many 100s of people liking the article not one person has come to Conservapedia to either comment on or congratulate you. Possible I suppose, but long odds, say 1300-1.--Tomqua 17:55, 10 December 2014 (EST)
Tomqua, please show me how you came up with the probability figure of 1300-1. Frankly, given your lack of support for the probability figure, it sounds like the typical atheist tripe/quackery that atheists are well-known for - especially since the article did get over 1300 thumbs up as can be seen HERE. Conservative 18:05, 10 December 2014 (EST)

Some of the articles linked on that page from this webpage are quite informative about the deceitfulness of atheists. Are there any similar articles that are here but haven't been listed there? I'm a bit new here so don't really know what's here, apart from those articles and the wonderful homeschooling content. Phil PhilH 17:44, 10 December 2014 (EST)

PhiliH, Feel free to research and create these articles: Anti-religious propaganda and Soviet anti-religious propaganda. Using these two articles, summary sections could be added to the Atheism and deception article. Conservative 17:56, 10 December 2014 (EST)
By the way Tomqua, so far the article has received: 1,447 thumbs up from a popular social media website beginning with a F and ending with a k some of which came from HERE, 1 Google Plus share and one Twitter tweet. The mystery of how I/we know this shall remain veiled. In the meantime, a message for you: 是故勝兵先勝而後求戰,敗兵先戰而後求勝 Conservative 18:28, 10 December 2014 (EST)
That gave you just enough time since your last post to press that button another 150 times. Again you bring Conservapedia into disrepute. I am no mathematician but I took the (rounded down) figure of 1300 and as no one came to Conservapedia to comment I take that to be a 1300-1 chance, don't you? This whole episode is quite frankly an embarrassment--Tomqua 18:32, 10 December 2014 (EST)
The over 1,400 thumbs up come from over 1,400 different accounts at that social media website. Are you proposing that there are over 1,400 editors using the User: Conservative account?
Secondly, I/we can tell you are neither a mathematician nor a statistician. No need to point that out. Conservative 18:50, 10 December 2014 (EST)

Syndey Siege

It should also be mentioned that the perpotrator was a self styled radical muslim cleric who was on bail with 50 + sex charges, helping murder his wife, a couple of assualt charges and one or two charges of theft. How someone like that could be on bail astounds me. This is more the issue than the guns. Phil PhilH 17:54, 15 December 2014 (EST)

To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas!

Gentlemen, consider this picture of Amish women shooting rifles. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See Hollywood values. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution and World War I and Darwinism and Evolutionary racism),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: Irreligion and domestic violence).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: Atheism and Mass Murder and Evolution and Nazi Germany).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. Conservative 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)

By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.
Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[11] :) Conservative 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. JSamson 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the Atheist actions against homosexuals article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.
But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine Sarah Palin has more machismo than all liberal atheists combined! Conservative 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -JaysonK 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. Conservative 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)

A couple of things on MPR that need addressing

This item promotes a fringe conspiracy theory about the Sandy Hook massacre that is very hurtful to many people. Having it featured on the main page makes it appear as though Conservapedia endorses this theory, which it certainly doesn't, so I believe that this should be removed.

The wrong form of 'who' is used here. It should be whose.

Thanks, --JonY 19:05, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Thanks, User:Conservative for removing your post about Sandy Hook, and for fixing the spelling error in such a timely manner. Though it seems the original edits were lost somehow, so my links don't lead anywhere.--JonY 20:03, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Pool noodle item

Main Page Right has a new item, "Liberal education working against you. Punishing the eight year-old blind kid by taking his cane away and replacing it with a pool noodle.[1]" I have read the news report and there is nothing to indicate that the teachers or administrators were liberal or conservative. Most conervatives believe in controlling student behavior and do not tollerate kids hitting other kids with their cane. Perhaps we should delete or rephrase this? Wschact 07:26, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Personal tools