User talk:Aschlafly/Archive16

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Could I suggest somewhere that a page be deleted?

I think the page The Silent Scream ought to be deleted because the link to it is not child friendly. Thta's ironic, I know, but I'm not making a joke. The film is not suitable for children, whatever your politics, and as such--and in accordance with our commandments--ought to be deleted. Flippin 14:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion is not child-friendly. Karajou 16:57, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, that's kind of what the whole "that's ironic" statement above meant. The page is specifically labeled "not for children." This is against Conservapedias commandments. do you see the problem? Thank you for your prompt reply. Flippin 16:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
You can submit articles for deletion in Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion. ColinRtalk 16:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Flippin, it's just a link. Nothing on the page itself is unsuitable for children. Also, I doubt it would disturb children anyway.
Also, Flippin, your objection seems ideologically motivated. What other pages have you previously objected to on the same basis?--Aschlafly 17:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, none. I objected once I followed the link and saw the word "not for children" Flippin 17:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT) ::That's what made it less than "family friendly" IMHO Flippin 17:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Further, a better question might be: can one question the page as presented without being ideologically motivated? Couldn't I do the same thing an question a page, say, has links to the site run by Fred Phelps? Flippin 17:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Silent Scream is precisely the type of educational material censored elsewhere we need to keep access to. RobS 17:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Flippin, I agree with RobS. Let me also add this: we don't selectively enforce rules the way that Wikipedia does. On Wikipedia, numerous ideologically based acts of censorship are "justified" by selective application of complex rules. Not here. There have been many attempts to post obscene entries here in violation of our rules, yet the first time you object is to an entry that I sense you do not like for ideological reasons. Such selective invocation of the rules is for Wikipedia, not us.--Aschlafly 18:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, how is this not selective?! You let "Silent Scream" stay. You can "contraception" for much less objectionable material. Why? Simplest answer - ideology.-AmesGyo! 20:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Big difference. Your refering to the text of the article, we talking about an external link from the page. RobS 20:55, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Please, the article is like one sentence long with a link. The clicking of the link is objectively foreseeable.-AmesGyo! 20:57, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

That's another ideological call for censorship. Sorry, we're not going to censor Silent Scream.--Aschlafly 21:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then your reasoning is purely ideological.-AmesGyo! 21:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

True, education is ideological, unless ignorance is preferable. RobS 21:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Abortion is the killing of a human being. The ideology involved is the attempt to hide (or censor) that fact. Getting away with protecting abortion is not going to happen here. Karajou 21:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
And contraception is the method of preventing a human being from coming into existence. But why can't we have an article on that? Ideology. --Hojimachongtalk 21:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Here's the cite to respond to that,
  • "the percentage of unmarried teenage girls who had engaged in sex was higher at every age from 15 through 19 by 1976 than it was just five years earlier. The rate of teenage gonorrhea trippled between 1956 and 1975 (54)...the real goal was to change students attitudes - put bluntly, to brainwash them with the vision of the anointed, in order to supplant the values they had been taught at home" --The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Thomas Sowell (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 19, fn54 Hearing before the Select Committee on Population, Ninety-fifth Congress, second session, Fertility and Contraception in America: Adolescent and Pre-Adolescent Pregnancy (Washington D.C. General Printing Office 1978), Vol. II p. 253. RobS 21:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't come to make changes, just to express my view and leave. I don't really care which way either of the articles go. But just for the record, I think abstinence-only sex-ed is irresponsible. --Hojimachongtalk 21:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then that's ideology, nothing less. Not education.-AmesGyo! 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is education: and the education is telling people what abortion is really like. Karajou 21:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
The commandments don't say anything about being "educational". --Hojimachongtalk 21:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyone can cite books, RobS. But your cite doesn't mean anything.-AmesGyo! 21:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

This is an excellent cite; the only question is does it go in contraception or sexually transmitted diseases, or both. RobS 21:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Contraception does not cause STDs; they prevent them. Nor does your quote have any context at all to judge its usefulness by. Perhaps you've been using contraceptives incorrectly, RobS.-AmesGyo! 21:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I take it back - I've stopped caring on this point. If you want your kids to grow up not knowing how to use contraception, then homeschool them, and it's up to you to deal with the consequences.-AmesGyo! 21:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's Sowell, in extensio:

STAGE 1. THE "CRISIS" American School Board Journal in 1969 depicted sex education as a way of combating " illegitimacy and venereal disease". [n42 September 1969 p. 31] (p.17)

Fertility rates among teenage girls had been declining for more than a decade since 1957. Venereal disease was also declining. The rate of infection for gonorrhea, for example, declined every year from 1950 through 1959 and the rate of syphilis infection was, by 1960, less than half of what it had been in 1950. [n45. Today's VD Control Problem: Joint Statement by American Public Health Association, American Social Health Association, American Venereal Disease Association, Association of State and Territorial Health Officers in Co-operation with the American Medical Association; February 1966, p. 20]

STAGE 2. THE "SOLUTION": Massive federal aid to sex education programs in the schools, and "family planning" clinics...

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: ....pregnancy rate among 15- to 19- year old females rose from approximately 68 per thousand in 1970 to approximatley 96 per thousand by 1980. [n50. Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population pp. 142, 144].... despite a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled during the same period... Sargent Shriver...testified candidly to a congressional committee in 1978: "Just as venereal disease has skyrocketed 350% in the last 15 years when we have had more clinics, more pills, and more sex education than ever in history, teenage pregnancy has risen." [n15. Ibid, p. 625] (p.18) is not necessary here to claim that statistics prove that these various policies–the ‘war on poverty,’ sex education, changes in criminal justice procedures–caused the disasters which followed. It would be sufficient to show that the promised benefits never materialized. A consistent record of failure, is only highlighted by the additional fact that things got worse....(p.56) RobS 22:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Distribution of birth control methods without proper instruction gets all of the harms and none of the benefits of both. That's why they have to be hand in hand. Also, the sample time period indicated above has problems - external causes leading to greater VD, etc. It is more likely that a mix of unrelated possible factors (population growth, city centering, greater college attendance) is the cause than birth control use itself.-AmesGyo! 22:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
This is only excerpted and the full context would be beneficial. Point is, "sex education" was sold as as means to lower STDs & prevent unwanted births; the results after federal aid to sex education was an explosion in STDs and unwanted births. Sowell concludes, "the real goal was to change students attitudes - put bluntly, to brainwash them with the vision of the anointed, in order to supplant the values they had been taught at home" -- never was it more true, and this does not just refer to the attitudes students were taught at home about sex. RobS 22:55, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I fail to see how a link to something showing the consequences of abortion should be removed. Geo.Talk 22:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

My Point

OK, THIS was my whole point: if one follows THIS link-- they will be greeted by THIS message-- "This website is NOT meant FOR CHILDREN!!" Now, without turning this into a ridiculous discussion of abstinence only education, the second amendment or the faked moon landing, can you explain why this link is "family friendly?" Per Commandment 3, links to Fred Phelps sites have been removed, so, why this one? I am bringing it up because it seems many on here would rather "selectively" enforce the rules. Flippin 09:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Time to archive yet?

Lots of scrolling.....

Yep. Can do. --Hacker(Write some code) 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm assuming...

That this will be the article on Template:Newsline for April 18th? It's definitely the most relevant. --Hojimachongtalk 21:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Or the San Francisco earthquake. --Hojimachongtalk 21:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Can we do both? While does all this bad stuff happen in the third week of April???--Aschlafly 21:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Probably porn, Andy.-AmesGyo! 22:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

420, Andy. I really hope you actually know the connotations behind that number. --Hojimachongtalk 22:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I confess I don't. I was hoping you'd explain it to me, unless an explanation violates our rules. :-) --Aschlafly 23:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll give a short explanation. Amongst users of cannabis, 420 (or 4:20, 4/20, etc.) is a colloquialism for marijuana. Thus, the date 4/20 is the most common day for practical jokes, though some take it too far (a la Columbine). Also, 4/20 is Hitler's birthday, which is a bad day in itself. DISCLAIMER: This does not advocate the use of said substance, merely an explanation of historical significance. --Hojimachongtalk 23:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
4/20 isn't a day for practical jokes, that's April Fool's day. 4/20 is a big cannabis consumption day, with many smoking at 4:20 AM or PM or both (along with the rest of the day). ColinRtalk 23:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
It is also the Senate Bill that clarified the Medical Marijuana law. Geo.Talk 01:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Origins, it was once the California Penal Code section for possession and use. ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually the rumor that it's a CA Penal Code is false 420. Jrssr5 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

23, Oh noes!

What does his age have to do with anything??? I know plenty of 23 year olds in college. What if he got a late start to school? Or had a late birthday? Or took a year off? I could go on and on... I thought Conservapedia was supposed to refrain from gossip. ColinRtalk 23:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin, I think you protest a bit too much. As a teacher and a parent, I'm careful about letting older kids hang out with younger ones. You don't let the big guys play the sandbox, for example. You're right that many older kids are staying in college these days. Some 30-something guy made national news by sticking around the University of Wisconsin. But is this healthy? Maybe not. Would we let a 20-year-old stay in high school? No, usually not.--Aschlafly 00:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that's ridiculous. I know many people who started college a year later, having taken a year off to work. As an immigrant, I'm betting this guy had some similar hoops to jump through. Look, he was insane, a bad, bad man, but being in college at 23 is not abnormal. Don't you have enough ridiculous links to pursue, like the pornography one? For those of you joining us now, Andy alleges that hardcore pornography on the kid's hard drive led to his murder spree. Not guns, though.-AmesGyo! 00:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Seriously. Andy, his age had nothing to do with anything. Period. Older kids and younger kids are one thing. Adults are another. I know a lot of seniors who are 23 or even older. The pornography claim was ridiculous enough, this is just too far. Now you're bordering on insulting the victims of the shooting. ColinRtalk 00:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, I find looking at the kid's picture on the main page deeply disturbing. I don't like looking at him and thinking of all of those innocent people killed. I expect the picture provokes similar reactions in others; could you take it down, perhaps until a few days later? One of my friends lost her roommate in the attack, and it just touches a bit too near for me.-AmesGyo! 00:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
a better memorial
Hoji's fixed it. Thanks Hoji!! A much better memorial. Maybe add the sports logo alongside?-AmesGyo! 00:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
That was just a precaution, pending approval from Andy. --Hojimachongtalk 00:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Guys, nobody is going to come to the site to see a bland emblem. Again, we don't censor stuff here. It's important to look at the killer and address the issues.
Ames, I'm sure you read newspapers and they will surely print that picture also. They already have.--Aschlafly 00:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

How is this comment relevant? Maybe he took a few years off. Maybe he switched majors. Maybe he's working part-time and going to school part time. I'm still in college at 39 - went back to school at 35, got a BA, started grad school right after. Does that make me suspect? This is nonsense and nuts.Take it down. Jacobin 00:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, how about a black ribbon & a VT logo? It's just a more tasteful memorial. I don't like seeing the face of evil when I turn on my computer.-AmesGyo! 00:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, wouldn't a black ribbon with the VT logo be not bland and more appropriate, and more poignant, and less creepy?-AmesGyo! 00:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, look at evil in the eye and recognize that evil does exist. Please.
Jacobin, maybe he has a good reason. But maybe he doesn't, and he was just hanging around just waiting to detonate. Smart and non-athletic, a reason why he was still there is not apparent to me. So let's ask the question and see if there is an explanation. If he was just lost, then that was a problem.--Aschlafly 00:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
If you're going to take that position, why not add "and did he eat bread with his sandwiches?" Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Maybe he ate some bad bread at the cafeteria and it caused him to snap. Do you know this wasn't the case? Again, I refer to the commandments which say that gossip is to be avoided. Mentioning his age for the reasons you listed above are gossip and nothing more. ColinRtalk 00:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

ColinR, you beat me to it... Andy, your lack of respect for victims is saddening. Evil can be recognized and dealt with without being reminded of it to excess, but that's your call. Good night.-AmesGyo! 00:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

He graduated high school in 03. This was his fourth year. His reason for being there at 23 was that he started when he was 19. Myk 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Actully he looks like every other 23 year old asian college guy i've ever seen.Jaques 00:46, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
and the reason for murder was pretty clear, he got dumped by his girlfriend and was pissed.Jaques 00:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
See, Ames, there's no reason for you to be disturbed by the picture.
Jaques, you may be right about the motive, but there might still be some unanswered questions even if that was the reason. Locking the doors shut, for example, and shooting so many rounds in military fashion. And was this a real girlfriend or his "imaginary" or virtual one? Hopefully news reports tomorrow will shed more light on this.--Aschlafly 00:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, what about the fact that he was only in college for four years? Graduated HS in 03, senior in 07. Myk 00:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Andy, since you don't think it's disturbing, I can't imagine how I did :-/. You disregard the "it's a better memorial" point, though.-AmesGyo! 01:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to be honest. I'm going to be in college when I'm 23. My major is a five year program, and I'll graduate at 23. Of course, I'm not going to be living in the dorm. Still, I don't think it's a fair question because there are many of us who have majors such as Education (me) or Architecture who have to stay for five years. DanH 01:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've been persuaded. I'll remove that question. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
see, his "girlfriend", [1] Jaques 01:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Interesting article. Thanks. I agree, "girlfriend" probably should be in quotes. Hopefully we'll get a better picture of the facts tomorrow.--Aschlafly 01:30, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

"We don't censor stuff here":

So saith Aschlafly.

If I could compress all the sarcasm in the world into one mass of uber-snark, it STILL wouldn't be sarcastic enough to make an adequate reply to that incredibly 'non-operative statement' --VVV 02:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Is this Family-Friendly?

I don't know how to make this link smaller, but at the bottom of the page: I thought Jeremiah4-22's comment was highly inappropriate for a "family-friendly" website such as this. Maybe you'd care to look at this. I realize you might think my comment is "ideologically" driven, but I assure you, when you see a liberal do the same thing to a conservative I will be just as angry. Flippin 10:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Andy, I have warned both parties. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Jeremiah4-22 would've earned a block from me; still contemplating it. RobS 12:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • As well as me. It was wholly inappropriate. --Hojimachongtalk 12:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree, a block would be in order. --CPAdmin1 12:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I think British MI5 or the Russian SVR or somebody must be using Conservapedia to train their version of subversive infiltrators to pass for what in their view is a "conservative right-winger". We've seen an army of them. Their training manuals really need to be updated. Conservapedia doesn't have an Assume Good Faith policy (which isn't policy in WP anymore anyway), and we just need to start handing out lengthy blocks for these types of bigotted stereotypes. RobS 12:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think Jeremiah4-22 has retracted his Comment, which was highly inappropriate. Given his retraction, this no longer seems to be a issue.--Aschlafly 13:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't say I totally agree, but I accept your right to run your site the way you choose. To be clear, I accept that this was an aberration on the part of this user, but even a symbolic block (3 days) would go a long way toward promoting equity and equality on this site. Thank you. Flippin 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Can I assume that this will be an addendum to the 3rd Commandment? That if a user apologizes for their act then the commandment will not be enforced? Also, does this apply to the other commandments? Thanks again. Flippin 13:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
He's been warned, and several Sysops ganging up an editor is a little unfair. As long as he understands this sort of thing isn't going to be treated as a joke and will in the future be viewed as a serious breach, everthing will be ok. RobS 15:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)



WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

--~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Praise the Lord! Geo.Talk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

They explicitly say Roe and Casey are safe, too. Amen!-AmesGyo! 21:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • "They", the Court, said no such thing. Look for more "surprises". --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

They re-affirm Roe and Casey in the first section. The entire thing is decided on the framework of Casey.-AmesGyo! 20:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you!

Thanks for blocking Athiest. I've got better things to do on this site besides reverting all his nonsense! --Thammersmith 14:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Could you also block "thepopeisanazi" or whatever his name is? Thanks!Flippin 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT) this guy--

Done. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Kissing still has the same content on the front of the page--not sure how to fix that. Flippin 14:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your point here, Flippin. I clicked on it and it redirects to the standard deleted page comment. I'll also protect it and the other pages I just revised in this manner.--Aschlafly 14:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
When I click on the link above I get "Kissing tends to be very unrewarding unless done with a member of the same sex and with LOTS of tounge for hours on end." I don't know why--it doesn't redirect to anything. Flippin 14:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Think I got it, now Flippin 14:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Look what the cat dragged in

Mr. Schlafly, here is my latest slew of new articles: Drew Barrymore, Cinderella, Education, The Standard Deviations of Writing, Islamist, Bobby Darin, Humiliation, User contributions, Mosaic, Alice Miller, Gavin de Becker, Outer space, Corporal punishment, Seung-Hui Cho, Conscience, Human nature, Healing, Universalist, Media Matters for America, Ave Maria, Alpha male, Peter principle, Murphy's law, Biologist, How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia, Abortion controversy, Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy, Flying machine, Anthropogenic global warming theory, Debate:Is waterboarding torture, Drunk driving, Scrabble, Martyr, Monopoly (board game), Mass murder, Narnia, Terms to avoid, Edit conflict, General Theory of Evolution, Ich bin ein Berliner, Instant messaging, Runaway greenhouse effect, Kyoto Protocol, Air pollution, Rahab, Primate (church), Slamming the door, Wikipedia:POV pushing --Ed Poor 15:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Fantastic!!!! I'm going to work on a bunch of new entries today also.--Aschlafly 16:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Please note that content on Conservapedia:Writing for the enemy was taken from Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy, and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. - Borofkin2 22:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed Poor was the original author of that content. --Hojimachongtalk 22:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Quite correct. My apologies. - Borofkin2 22:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Not only that, but I was careful to take only my original version, and not the derivative work created by later versions. :-) --Ed Poor 23:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Yep... it appeared to me that you had taken the current version and removed some sentences in the hope that no-one would notice. In my incompetence I failed to check the history. - Borofkin2 23:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't be so hard on yourself :P. --Hojimachongtalk 23:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It's okay to want to make sure. DanH 23:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Bible article

User:AKjeldsen was kind enough to provide his sources, which were the German titles for the books listed in the reference section. Since he is from Denmark and is providing material for Conservapedia, I saw no reason why as to not recognize and include the German works he provided, as can be seen in the article itself. Karajou 16:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent!--Aschlafly 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Although the article entries to this site are in American English, we do have foreign contributers. If a student from another country references an article here and sees a source to it that he's familiar with, this site just gets that much better. Karajou 23:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Right. We've relaxed and virtually abandoned the rule of American-only English based on feedback by our good friends around the world, and by the students here. Only after we initiated the American English rule here did I realize that Wikipedia was begun by copying the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which explains its overreliance on the Queen's English.--Aschlafly 00:09, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Technically, the dialect is supposed to reflect the subject matter of the article. So an article about the US would use American English, Britain would use Queen's English, etc. This also goes for people (where they are from), ideas (who came up with them), etc. Just thought I'd point it out. --Hojimachongtalk 00:13, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Exactly right, Hoji. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 00:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Good. It sounds like it's about time to remove the bit about American/British English from the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page (No. 16). Philip J. Rayment 02:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


Check out Wikipedia's featured article today! --Hojimachongtalk 20:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hilarious!!!! Mr. Survival of the fittest Charles Darwin.--Aschlafly 20:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
(Mr. Survival of the Fittest was Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin. The word "fittest" does not appear at all in The Origin of Species. It was Spencer's colorful (and misleading) name for the phenomenon which Darwin called "natural selection.") Dpbsmith 22:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
actully, "survival of the fittest" describes natural selection pretty well.Jaques 22:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, if we are talking about concepts rather than terms, natural selection was described by a creationist prior to Darwin. Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I imagine that article is featured because it's the anniversary of his death today. Tsumetai 05:09, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
<sarcasm>Oh, ha ha! Charles Darwin being made an FA! My sides! That is the funniest, most biased thing Wikipedia has ever done!</sarcasm> --Hacker(Write some code) 22:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you measure up?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Ames wrote an excellent first draft of a Stereotype article, on request, in less than 20 minutes. --Ed Poor 11:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the concept of the article is not only good, but necessary. Karajou 13:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks guys, appreciate the compliments. I also wrote a summary of the abortion decision yesterday, Gonzales v. Carhart.-AmesGyo! 19:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I also appreciate your efforts but your Stereotype contains baseless allegations of prejudice against VMI and perhaps others. Some gender-based differences, such as Social Security giving preferences to widows, are not "stereotypes" to be criticized. There are good reasons for having all male military schools, as well as some all-men or all-women colleges, and the baseless criticisms cannot remain in the entry. You can edit them out first, but if you don't then I will.
I haven't yet looked at your Gonzales v. Carhart, but no liberal opinions will be allowed to pass as facts there either. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy are you serious? I'm not stating opinion, except that I am stating Opinion of the Court. Please read the Opinion and get back to me. I respect your lower-case-o-pinion of the Court, but I'm merely stating what the Supreme Court said. Thanks.-AmesGyo! 19:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, just as we don't cite journalistic opinions as facts, we don't cite legal opinions as facts either. They are opinions. Isn't that obvious?
I'm inviting you to change your entry so that it complies with our rules and is encyclopedic. Try looking up "stereotype" in the Encyclopedia Britannica for starters, if you like. I will remove the opinion from the entry if you do not.--Aschlafly 19:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, the legal Opinion of the Court is binding law. If you can't state Supreme Court text here, then what can you state? There is no longer any subjective opinion in the VMI section, though, I saw to it - only the facts of the Case, as written by the Court. Again, feel free to disagree with me after you re-read the case.-AmesGyo! 19:59, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Your entry pretends to be factual. Lawyers are not experts in stereotypes, and are not social scientists. If you want to have an entry about the VMI case, then please do so (and include the dissent). A factual entry is not allowed to convert opinion to fact. Our rules are clear about that. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Move your opinion to an entry about the case if you like. I will delete it from stereotype of you don't.--Aschlafly 20:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, your crusade against fact is becoming absurd. At the point that you disturb the settled law of the United States of America' by calling the holding of a Supreme Court Justice mere "opinion," confounding the meaning of a Judicial Opinion with mere thought, you have passed the verge of acceptable bias and begun to call absolute fact - absolute settled, factual law - subjectively not applicable, depending on your fickle whims, caprices, and ideology. Stare decisis and law still apply to your website, even if we have all conceded that the laws of science do not. You cannot say that stating the actual decision of the Court in VMI is anything but factual, no matter how much you disagree with its holding (which is also absurd!). I refuse to stand by idly and see you do what you have done to science, again to law.-AmesGyo! 23:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, your response is appreciated.-AmesGyo! 00:38, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Ames, what you cite is an "opinion", and it is not even an opinion by any recognized experts in the field you are describing. This violates our rules. It is no different from Wikipedia trying to convert a journalist's opinion into fact. We don't do that here. Go to Wikipedia if you want to get away with that.
Don't try to cite the Dred Scott opinion to support a factual claim about slavery either. Get the point? Don't waste any more time on this.--Aschlafly 00:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, decisions that are good law are facts about the law, not opinion. Dred Scott is obviously distinguishable from VMI - one has been overruled! So to say that Dred Scott represents facts about slavery or law is false, because the Court has repudiated it. However, to say that VMI represents an accurate assessment of gender discrimination law in America is prima facie correct. As to the problem of the "experts," you should know as well as I do that court opinions incorporate expert testimony and "make findings" incorporating expert testimony. Court opinions are some of the most expert documents in America. Your knowledge of, and respect for, the law is embarrassing. How do you expect your students to learn if you do not allow them to be exposed to facts, no matter how much you may disagree with them!?

I also get that you do not want to further this conversation. I argue that your capacity as an educator mandates you to do otherwise. You have already convinced Reginod (see his "Dicta," a statement of the rules of Conservapedia) and TK that Supreme Court opinions, far from being settled law, are in fact "opinion," free to be disregarded as a moral force if one disagrees with their holdings. You have convinced them that the most respected legal institution in the land does not deserve their respect. If you are any sort of educator, you are required to correct this mistaken perception of the way the law, and indeed the country, actually work. As a lawyer you are similarly compelled. You may not disregard Supreme Court law as mere "opinion" where convenient. Even when you disagree with it and challenge it in court, it is still the law, and that the Court has held it still makes it legal FACT, not opinion.-AmesGyo! 01:31, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps this would be a good time to mention a custom or guideline seen at Wikipedia. They regard court rulings as definitive (at least, when it suits them), which btw is a typical Liberal thing.
Ames, in contrast to Wikipedia this project does not regard "the latest court ruling" as factual in the sense that the opinion of the court can be deemed objective. We merely record the fact that (Court A) rendered (Decision B).
Andy, is this correct? --Ed Poor 08:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, if that is the correct position of this site, than the article that started this all - stereotype - should have the VMI section restored. I merely recorded the fact of VMI's ruling, and Justice Ginsburg's reference to stereotyping therein. However, I fail to see how calling court rulings "definitive" is a liberal thing to do. I never said court rulings were final at all. However, the fact that the Court has ruled one way is factual and until disturbed is law.-AmesGyo! 09:56, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, let me also express my shock and apologies that this article has become so controversial. I saw the stereotype article as a way for me to prove to the Conservapedia community that I could make a positive contribution, quickly and effectively, if requested. I appreciate its reception as such by you and Karajou, as indicated on this page. I could never have imagined, though, that a ten-year old Supreme Court case, which discusses stereotyping very prominently, could have become the battle ground for Andy to revive his family's age-old crusade against women's rights. If you want to read the opinion, Ed, please send me your e-mail address and I'll get you a reporter image, just so you can see how un-controversial it is.-AmesGyo! 10:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that is not the place to discuss VMI's decision to admit female cadets. Try Virginia Military Institute.
As for the controversy, you knew it would ensue - and I assure you it would be okay. No one is censuring you; and if they do, I will take the blame since I asked you to start the article. On the other hand, if you'll "read down" while replying, you'll see, "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here."
I knew that the article was related to other things. Let's write about those other things, such as:
  1. women in the military
  2. women's rights
  3. Equal Rights Amendment
  4. judicial activism
We can write trustworthy articles on these things, and as Charlie Bucket's grandfather said to him, "I'm counting on you ..." --Ed Poor 10:31, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Oops, I forgot about judicial activism. --Ed Poor 10:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha, judicial activism is a fairly subjective term! Thanks for your support, Ed. I will paste the deleted paragraph into a VMI article, or something like it. I guess that's workable. However, I will not let Andy get away with mis-characterizing the nature of law as fact. As an educator, he is compelled to do correct his flaty erroneous statements. Andy, unless you reply here, I will take my points as conceded.-AmesGyo! 12:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)


Hold on to your hats, folks. I did a survey of 10 articles, and half of them aren't bad! :-) Let's keep up the good work!! --Ed Poor 13:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, when I did that, I got:
  1. Jericho (good article for conservapedia, 362 words)
  2. Peanuts (stub)
  3. E.T. (stub)
  4. Geological column (stub)
  5. Ecglaf (stub)
  6. Bhutan (stub)
  7. Sharia (good article, 710 words, but mostly list of laws)
  8. Narrative Statement (stub)
  9. Hugh Ross (stub)
  10. Sargon the Great (stub)

(stubs I defined as less than 100 words) NickJ10 18:01, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

If we merge your ten with my ten, that would make:
7 / 20 = 35%
Which is still much better than Wikipedia: 0.2% "featured" or "good". --Ed Poor 11:11, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
But a 'start' class (the lowest class other than stub) article on wikipedia is about the same quality as a 'good' article on Conservapedia. For example, on wikipedia, 'Real analysis' is start class, but on Conservapedia, it would be a good article. NickJ10 20:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggested articles for "Breaking News" on the Main Page

Sections on Abortion, Global Warming, Homosexuality / Gay Rights, Liberal Art, Politically Correct, Wikipedia and Other. Crocoite Talk 17:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Will do. I've been planning on featuring the new Hate Crime bill, for example.--Aschlafly 19:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thomas J. Jackson

Have to disagree with Ed Poor a little. A stub is a stub is a stub. Good starting point yes, but a survey of such for quality? Do you look at the half-full bucket and say it's fine at the level it's at? I don't. I cannot be satisfied until I got a completely filled article here...which right now happens to be Stonewall Jackson. To me, you got to look at it from the student's perspective. Can a student confidently use an article here as the basis for an essay or report? We should all strive to make each and every article the best it can possibly be.

So I say, no more stubs! Let's fill'er up! Karajou 18:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Amen!--Aschlafly 19:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
And I'm taking a short break from the Civil War and correcting another stub: Horatio Nelson. It'll be finished tonight. Karajou 19:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
By the way, I created a redirect for your superb entry on Thomas J. Jackson at Stonewall Jackson.
Karajou is the author of the only article here ever to be nominated for "Feature" status. Whatever Karajou says, I agree to! :-) --Ed Poor 11:14, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Looming copyright problems on images

Could you review Conservapedia:Looming copyright problems and consider what might need to be done for addressing this? --Mtur 20:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd suggest getting this discussion off of Andy's very public page... keep it on the down-low, it's a serious issue. --Hojimachongtalk 20:09, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Indeed it is a serious issue, and I hope that it will not be lost to the Recent Changes list. It is something that needs the attention of the site administrator and I am not sure how else to go about it. Feel free to delete this section (and not archive it) once it has been addressed. As an artist, this is a significant concern of mine. --Mtur 20:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, you raise a valid issue. Please keep in mind, however, that (unlike Wikipedia) this is an educational site. We're not developing search engines here, and we are teaching students. So fair use doctrine should apply.
That said, what do you suggest? We have a DMCA Agent posting, and editors are sternly warned "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"--Aschlafly 20:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I suggest that you require a link to the original source or have the uploader attest to being the copyright holder of the image. As it stands, I suggest going through and looking at the list of uploaded images and search google images for the name of the image - many times it has come up on the first or second page. If it is there and no permission is listed for the image, remove it. If there is licensing that conflicts with that of Conservapedia, remove it. Being an educational site (and falling under fair use more easily) does not remove the question of conflicting licensees. --Mtur 20:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I suggest that each of us go into the articles we had a hand in, and edit the summary as to the copyright status of the pic involved. Is it a fair use news image? Was it made before 1923? Little things like that can go a long way in keeping us out of legal trouble. Karajou 20:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Many, perhaps most, of our images were created before 1923, and that almost always means that their copyright has expired. Most of the remainder should fall under fair use. I did have an inquiry about one image, and the creator simply wanted credit, which I promptly gave.
I'm open to further suggestions. For example, some of our images are of NFL players. Does anyone think the NFL would object? I don't.
Mtur, can you find more than two examples of potential copyright issues? I don't expect the National Geographic to complain about our educational use of its image, and that was one of the two. But I welcome any more you can identify.--Aschlafly 21:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
From Conservapedia:Looming copyright problems :
All of these were from looking at the uploaded files and picking ones that had reasonable names and where linked within the article. I have not been able to find the original source for the Bengal tiger, (not) sperm whale, or badger. There is also Image:Mushroom.jpg which is from a blog. I would be happy to point out more if necessary. --Mtur 21:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

FYI, here is "fair use doctrine": 17 USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS §§ 106 and 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. ...

--Aschlafly 21:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

There is still the question of "if the image is licensed under the CC with attribution" and the Copyrights page says that any content may be used without attribution, this appears to be a conflict of licensing. I am not sure how fair use applies there. Furthermore, you have images that are under the GDFL which require the material they are included in to also be GDFL. Again, I am not certain how the conflict of licensing is resolved. --Mtur 21:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, in further consideration of Mtur's comments, I have revised Conservapedia:Copyright‎ to reflect that we do not grant the right to copy images here.--Aschlafly 21:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Going forward, is it possible to require the licensing and attribution for all images to be required when uploading? --Mtur 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
How does that fit with fair use doctrine, and also the ability to use any pre-1923 image? Honestly, if only 2 images are even questionable at this point, then it seems premature to start limiting uploads on this basis. Perhaps I should track down the copyright issues with those 2 images (and any others you might identify) first.--Aschlafly 21:28, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
There are clearly more than 2 images (the quick survey above showed 5 that had issues and another couple that I couldn't find the original or the license for). That was with about a quarter hour of looking. If the image is pre-1923, then say so in the description (like Image:Annibale Carracci 1585.jpg). If the image is a creative commons that requires attribution, link to the license and make sure there is attribution. This is not asking to limit uploads, but rather make it policy that uploads must have the information as to why it is allowed to use a particular image and to comply with the licensing for the image. This should not be a burden to any legitimate upload of a file. --Mtur 21:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
For refrence, in the past 20 minutes, I've found 7 more (see Special:Contributions/Mtur) (including one that is by the creator of I honestly believe that there are many more that are out there. This is not an isolated incident of a few pictures. --Mtur 22:01, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the fair use doctrine applies to all these. But I'd like to research this further. We already do have a notice warning editors: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" Are you suggesting an additional warning somewhere? I'd like to learn more about this. If you have email addresses for the 9 images that you question (I've already resolved two others), then I'd be happy to email the copyright holder for consent, though I think we're protected under fair use doctrine.--Aschlafly 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
On Special:Upload, there is no warning. Compare this with the upload page on Wikipedia[3]. For Conservapedia, have templates or drop down licensing option (similar to Wikipedia) to say where the image was found, the contact information for the copyright holder, and delete those images that have no information, are in violation of the licensing, or have incompatible licenses. As it stands, Wikipedia tries to remain scrupulous with respect to the copyright and licensing of all images that are presented on the website. --Mtur 22:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I tried your Wikipedia link and nothing opens unless the person is logged in (I'm not). I don't think we have the software capability to have drop-down licensing. Also, I don't see how adding where the image was found makes it fair use or not. Wikipedia is building traffic for its for-profit search engine project and fundraising. We do not. Wikipedia does no teaching. We do. Can you post the contacts for the images you question? I'll then contact them and I expect to obtain consent. This is how I have successfully handled these issues in the past. I welcome further suggestions that are feasible.--Aschlafly 22:27, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The location of the image is not a determination for fair use, but rather as an accounting so that others can look there if there are any questions as to the origin of the image. It is so that if someone comes by later and says "you are using the image in a way that is not in accordance with the licensing" or "you removed the copyright from the image" (a criminal offense) you can say "I'm sorry, I will rectify that, this is where I got it from and was under the assumption that this other license was the case." If it does become an issue of copyright infringement, it changes the amounts of damages significantly (willful vs accidental). For all the images which I have found contacts, the contact information can be obtained by following the links in the description (I hesitate to post private individuals' contact information on a reasonably trafficked website - I am fairly sure you can appreciate that). --Mtur 22:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
If you look closely at Image:GDMA.jpg, you'll see evidence of a company's water mark on it, claiming copyright for a work originally by someone in the U.S. Government. Karajou 22:48, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
You can't copyright a work that was taken by a US employee or military personnel during the course of their official duties. And perhaps Conservapedia could be a bit more vocal as to the whole "educational" thing, as it's somewhat ambiguous as to what we are. --Hojimachongtalk 22:50, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
That's right. And my suggestion for this is to delete it and pick a better one for the Douglas MacArthur article. Karajou 22:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Why bother? Since it can't be copyrighted?--~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The watermark made the whole thing look bad anyway. So it's gone now! Karajou 23:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


There are several people who just signed in with the name "visitor" and they have different IPs. Should all the "visitors" be banned? Conservative 21:30, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yes, please block them all. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Daily Theodore Roosevelt Quote

I apologize, but here is another quote to replace the previous one which I guess was erased when the VT news came up. I updated the discussion article on the main page as well, but I'm not sure if you actively check older articles there. Anyway, here is a copy of the discussion topic.

UPDATE 4/19/07

I pulled the following quote from the 1924 edition of TR's autobiography.

"When the criminal has been punished, if he then shows a sincere desire to lead a decent and upright life, he should be given the chance, he should be helped and not hindered; and if he makes good, he should receive that respect from others which so often aids in creating self-respect --the most invaluable of all possessions." Theodore Roosevelt- An Autobiography, In Cowboy Land

I know that this is a long quote, but it is also very powerful. Don't feel like you need to include the entire quote.--Flashstar 22:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Douglas MacArthur

Ok, bad pic, bad stub, bad layout of a bad pic in a bad stub. Re-laying a new pic is the start of building up this article...sometime after that Nelson guy. Karajou 23:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Good work SYSOPS!

As a new user (3 weeks) to Conservapedia, it disturbs me to see someone repeatedly making accounts just to vandalize pages and destroy the efforts of others. Tonight it appeared as though the site was "under attack", and I watched in dismay as a lot of bad pages were quickly created. But you can be proud of your sysops - their rapid response to the vandalism was really terrific! Just wanted to say Great job to the Sysops who worked to block tonight's slew of vandalism!

Kudos to:

DanH, RobS, ColinR, TK, Hojimachong

and also to Conservative who blocked earlier today, and Tsumetai for his blocks yesterday.

and users who rushed to help:

User: Rob Pommer (removed offensive content), and User: Bohdan (who even had his own personal talk page attacked as a result)

Good work guys!

As a new user myself (31 days), I also thank them. --Ed Poor 11:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

--Taj 01:28, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

PS Sorry if I missed anyone - good job all

Andy, a quick Google search reveals that edittext plays "RuneScape", an extremely addictive online game. Having multiple owners of an account (as edittext seems to) is grounds for banning from that game. If he comes back, say that you found his "RuneScape" account, that you know "Andy Gower", and that you'll have him blocked if he continues. 8th graders respond well to this kind of threat, believe me. --Hojimachongtalk 01:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Remind me to write about Internet addiction. --Ed Poor 11:22, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much for the efforts and comments below. We are blessed with an extremely good collection of SYSOPs. Man for man and woman for woman, the best of any Wiki, I'd say!--Aschlafly 14:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools