Difference between revisions of "User talk:CPanel/Archive1"

Revision as of 14:55, April 16, 2007

That hardly sounds like a panel of objective experts...Palmd001 16:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Is it supposed to be? --Huey gunna getcha 16:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have SERIOUS issues with the "anonymous members" bit. Members in this position should HAVE to be marked as such. --Sid 3050 16:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

OOO, OOO, can I be a member? I'll be ever so good! I promise I won't let my high school studies, lack of life experience or religious brain washing get in the way of making good fair decisions! Pwetty Please? MatteeNeutra 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It has already been set up as anonymous and it is unlikely to change. CPWebmaster 16:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

So, a few anonymous Panel members could push their own point of view, and once it gets pushed back towards whatever passes as "neutrality" here, the Panel members could declare that this is a major conflict and should be handled... by the Panel. And nobody would of the conflict of interest. How convenient! --Sid 3050 16:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

how do we know a panel even exists! This looks serious bent, like a banana republic wiki! --Cgday 18:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Myk 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"We do not censor in any way"

It is a shame that many of your editors do not agree with that policy, see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=56791&oldid=48604 for one incidence of very silly deletion. If you truly did not censor you would not keep closing the facility to create accounts.

Well, to be fair, we are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia because (1) we do not follow the GFDL and (2) Andy made it a rule.

However, there is censoring going on. Look at Conservative's edits that removed entire sections (with cites) simply because he didn't want his little propaganda piece to be cluttered with silly things like science. Or heck, look at some of the locked articles and their histories in general. --Sid 3050 19:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

How do we know that these panel members are up to date on the "major conflicts" they recieve? Do they actively edit here and follow the ongoing debates? What's to stop them from becoming another user:conservative or user:scorpion? And they should definitely not be anonymous. It's easy to hide behind anonymimity (sp, too lazy to look it up for real), but it takes a real man (or woman) to stand up and declare "I did it." Jrssr5 19:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Rob Pommer_TALK is NOT a member of The Panel and no-one should contact Rob Pommer_TALK on his talk page or via email regarding ANY decisions that may come up for review by The Panel. Besides, bribery is unethical. Rob Pommer_TALK 18:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I think having the homeschoolers form the panel is a wonderful idea. Harken the words of our Lord and savior himself:

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14)

"Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." (Mark 7:27)

JC 09:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Why Conservapedia need to include the "mainstream" view of evolution... somewhere.

It is often possible to agree on "facts about opinions." For example:

• regardless of whether the phlogiston theory is or is not true, it is a fact that it was the dominant scientific theory of combustion from about 1718, when Stahl developed it, until 1777, when Lavoisier published "Sur la combustion en général."
• regardless of the medical effectiveness of bleeding, it is a fact that at the time of George Washington's final illness it was the generally accepted medical treatment for many kinds of illness.
• regardless of whether or not the Apollo astronauts actually landed on the Moon, it is a fact that a large number of people—about 6% of the U. S. population, according to one poll—believe that the landing was a hoax or deception and that it never occurred... and it is also a fact that most Americans believe they really did land on the moon.

Now, with regard to the theory of evolution, there are a number of facts that we should be able to agree on, regardless of whether or not we agree with the theory of evolution. One of them is a fact about opinion: just as most scientists once believed in the phlogiston theory; just as most doctors once believed in bleeding as a treatment for illness; just as most Americans now believe that the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon... the scientific mainstream of today believes in the theory of evolution.

• It is a fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences can be taken to represent "mainstream scientific opinion" in the United States. It is a fact that the AAAS issued a 2002 statement opining that "The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry.... To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.... the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education."
• It is a fact that about 15% of the questions in the SAT II Biology test are on evolution and diversity, and the "correct" answers reflect the contemporary theory of evolution.
• It is a fact that the New Jersey core curriculum standards, on which the HSPA tests are based, assume a knowledge of the contemporary theory of evolution. It imposes specific goals: by grade 12, students are expected to "Explain that through evolution the Earth's present species developed from earlier distinctly different species" and "Explain how the theory of natural selection accounts for extinction as well as an increase in the proportion of individuals with advantageous characteristics within a species."

Conservapedia can qualify what is said about evolution. Conservapedia can make sure that points of view that are unrepresented or underrepresented elsewhere are given a fair, even a preferential presentation.

But if Conservapedia is going to fulfill the goal of being a "trustworthy" educational research, it needs to present the mainstream opinions on evolution as well as unorthodox opinions. And it needs to present the mainstream opinions so clearly, fairly and accurately that a reader can understand them... and, in particular, a student understand them well enough to know which are intended to be the "correct" answers on examinations that are advised for college applicants and that increasingly are required for high school graduation.

I'd add that what imprisons a mind is the notion that, literally, "everyone else believes it." (Orwell: "Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.") To liberate it, it is sufficient to make it clear that "not everyone else believes it." It's not necessary to go to the opposite extreme. Dpbsmith 21:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this to be such a useful statement that I am going to steal it for reprint on my page.--PalMD^talk 21:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I would endorse this view, Dpbsmith. In order to understand the theory itself and it's criticism, people need to be presented with an actual view of what the theory of evolution actually states, and draw their own conclusions (though most will probably come here with preconcieved notions). My $0.02. --Hojimachong^talk 21:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same Door as in I went."—The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam Dpbsmith 22:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I entered a submission to the panel. I linked to this argument, AmesG's petition, and Hoji's alternative language. The ball needed to start rolling on this. Feel free to add to the petition Conservapedia:Panel/SubmitMyk 22:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Please explain

Could you please explain the reasoning behind your recent bizarre decision on the Theory of evolution page? --Horace 20:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Donut Page

Could the panel please adjudicate on the dispute that is currently taking place on the donut page?

The various factions cannot seem to agree on whether donuts need holes in order to qualify as donuts. For myself I have doubts about whether there is such a thing as an elongated donut (although I have been told that a "maple bar" qualifies).

We would appreciate your guidance on this one. --Horace 23:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

See User:Hojimachong/Donut to CPanel. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk 23:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)