User:Reginod

2007-05-10T20:00:48Z

Reginod: /* "Brag List" */ updated

''Winner of the coveted Fresh Air Barnstar''

==Conservapedia Dicta==
I’ve just posted what was a personal list of comments clarifying the rules to my personal talk page here [[User:Reginod/dicta]] . If you find it helpful or see changes that are needed, please let me know on that page’s talk page.

=="Brag List"==
Since I have been accused of being nothing but a complainer who does nothing to actually improve or add to Conservapedia I’ve started a list of places I feel I’ve made a difference here. I hate to have a “brag list” on my user page, but it seems like the prudent course of action given the current atmosphere.

Articles started or largely responsible for:
:[[John Birch]] – started.
:[[Polygamy]] – Greatly fleshed out, added historical, cross-cultural, and modern information
:[[Pornography]] – Started a much improved version (not yet adopted—see draft here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] )
:[[Protests against the Vietnam War]] – started at [[User:TK|TK]]’s suggestion, still very much in progress.

Articles substantially contributed to:
:[[Atlantis]] – Improved section on Plato
:[[Divine right of kings]] – Added traditional Biblical support for the doctrine
:[[Eris]] – Added role in Greek mythology and modern astronomy, made much less silly
:[[Free will]] – turned a article serving as a religious argument into a start of a real argument.
:[[Inalienable rights]] – Clarified the philosophical concept
:[[Jason]] – Summarized Greek myth
:[[Jean Paul Sartre]] – added to list of Sartre’s works
:[[Jericho]] – Added information about archeological history
:[[OPEC]]—Removed biased stub, provided a factual start for the article
:[[Suicide bombing]] – added some history and numbers
:[[United States National Motto]] – Corrected mis-quotes and tracked down proper sources for those quotes.

Articles improved
:[[Agape]] – Started after vandalism
:[[Albert Einstein]] – Removed numerous misleading references
:[[Alfred Kinsey]] – Removed numerous misleading references
:[[Feminism]] – Some work on the philosophical position
:[[Feminist]] – Some work on the philosophical position
:[[Rudi Giuliani]] – Lots of quoted material was uncited, I fixed that.
:[[Roe v. Wade]] – Clarified the Court’s 3 trimester structure.
:[[Sufi]]—clarified relation to rest of Islam

==Libertarian not Liberal==
As long as I’m at it. I’ve also been accused of being a “liberal” so I may as well take a moment to make my political philosophy clear.

I am, politically, a Libertarian. I believe that in a state of nature no one has the right to touch me or my stuff without my consent and that I have the right to use as much force as necessary to prevent others from touching me or my stuff without my consent. However, I also believe that many people would not, in a state of nature, respect my rights and that I am not strong enough to protect my rights against infringement by all others. So, I take myself out of a state of nature and enter into society. I submit myself to the authority of a government and surrender some of my rights in order to ensure that the rest of my rights are respected and protected. However, I surrender as few of my rights as possible to make the government work. This means I submit to reasonable levels of taxation, surrender my right to use force to protect my rights (except in cases of immediate self-defense), and I give up the right to behave without consideration of the public good. That’s about it. I may have given up a few more rights, but I’d have to hear a very good argument before I would agree to that.

In practical terms, this means I agree with members of both major parties some of the time and disagree with them on others some of the time.

Here is where I am on some of the “hot button” issues.
:Abortion: I consider myself a moderate here. Once the fetus is a human being, it is morally indefensible to abort it other than to protect the health of the mother (the mother has no right to take a human life, unless that human life threatens her own). While the fetus is not a human, abortion, for any reason the mother wants, is morally permissible. I don’t know when the fetus becomes a human being—I have some suspicions (Almost certainly by the end of the 2nd trimester, but probably not before the end of the 1st trimester). If I had to decide, I’d probably draw the line around the end of the 1st trimester.
:Drugs: A person has the right to do to their own body any stupid thing they want. So long as the drugs are used in the privacy of ones own home and I don’t have to pay taxes to care for those who are stupid enough to injure themselves with drugs, I think they should be legal. Legalize and tax—that’s what I say. (same goes for prostitution)
:Evolution: I lack the expertise to judge the arguments for and against it—I’m fairly convinced, by the vigor with which creationists argue for the inclusion of ID in public schools, that ID is a religious position rather than a scientific one (but I’m open to hearing otherwise), if that is the case I don’t want the schools teaching it as science.
:Federal Debt: This is way to high, borrowing against the future is both bad policy and morally questionable, why should children yet to be born have to pay for things being done today?
:Federal Deficit: I oppose deficit spending, save in extraordinary emergencies.
:Gay marriage: If a church wants to recognize a gay marriage it should be allowed to, if it doesn’t want to recognize a gay marriage it shouldn’t have to. Personally, I’d make marriage a purely religious matter and take the government out of it all together. Its none of the government’s business who I chose to live with or how I and my religion choose to see that living arrangement.
:Homosexuality: A person has the right to consent to any use of their body they see fit. I don’t care who has sex with who, its none of my business.
:The Income Tax: As it is, it hovers around the acceptable high (if it were much higher I’d think it was immoral, if it were lower, I’d be happer)—I guess if I felt the government was using all the money it collected appropriately I’d be happier about it—The government has the right to tax for what it needs, so long as it only taxes for what it needs and not what it wants.
:The Iraq War: What a mess. If I was sure that we went in with pure motives, if we really were going in in self-defense, I’d support the War 100%. If I was sure we went in under false pretences, if we really went in for the profit of oil companies or for some Bush family vendetta, I’d oppose the War 100%. As it is, I’m not sure what was going on in the White House. Now I just want as few of out solders to die and be injured as possible while protecting America against future attacks, and I have no idea what choice in the future will best serve those interests.
:Religion: Personally I’m fairly agnostic—I don’t know who is right and I don’t pretend to. I’d like to believe that some sort of divine being exists and that so long as I live my life morally (by which I mean respecting the rights and autonomy of others) that being will see me as good when and if I am judged. Politically, I think religion is a personal choice, I don’t care what religion a person holds in their heart, I care what they do in public. As far as I am concerned a person can worship any deity from Athena to YHWH and so long as they respect my rights I could care less.
:War on Terror: The United States government has no duty higher than that to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks. Full stop, the end.

For those who care, I also just took the “political compass” test and it places me as a centrist libertarian
Left/Right: 0.00 (Dead Center)
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62 (More Libertarian than any figure I see on their chart)

==Stats for 90/10 rule==
As of this posting 7:30 pm EST 4/11/07 Contribution stats are (by my count – rounded to the nearest whole percent) as follows:
283 – Total edits
:135 – Article main Page edits 48%
:102 – Article talk page edits 36%
:9 – User Page edits 03%
:24 – User Talk Page edits 08%
:4 – Conservapedia page edits 01%
:9 – Conservapedia talk page edits 03%

(Total numbers include minor edits and talk page edits include all posts)

==Why I am here==

When I was banned, I was asked me to explain why I was here and what I hoped to contribute to the project. What follows is a slightly edited version of my response:

:I identify, as a fairly centrist Libertarian. That is not a point of view I see well represented among the contributors to the project – I see a lot of Social Conservatives of a number of stripes and I see a fair number of liberals who see themselves as something like the “loyal opposition”. However, the libertarian voice is an important and powerful one in the broader Conservative movement. In part, I think my presence, and my strong commitment to that position is of value to the site in and of itself. More importantly, I think it is important that the broader Conservative movement not become identified exclusively with Social Conservativeism—I think that is vital for the success of the movement, and for the good of the nation—so I do have a larger political goal in being here, one which I think serves the ends of the project. Other than that, I have a broad knowledge base in philosophy, law, current events, and (to a lesser extent) history and comparative religions. I try to keep my edits to those areas and I think in doing so I am helping Conservapedia move to becoming a better encyclopedia in that regard. To some extent this ties back to the first way I think I am helping the project, as I feel familiar with both sides (or in some cases all sides) of points of controversy (largely as a result of my philosophy background) and I am able to add information about a side that is not represented in many articles (I think that a number of articles are slanted, not as a result of any intention on the author, but as a result of not know why the other side thinks the way it does or how the other side perceives itself, and as a result not knowing what facts are important in presenting a factually neutral article). For example, I am somewhat familiar with some of what the ACLU does and I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts of it, but I understand the reason they think what they are doing is right and why those who oppose them when I don’t think why what they are doing is wrong—but without presenting both why the ACLU is acting and what the ACLU is seen as doing no one will truly understand the controversy around any of the cases (I think, by the way, that the changes I helped with at the ACLU article are a particularly good example of this).
:I do understand that I may be seen as obstructive because I want to understand why actions are taken (this is the negative flip side to the fact that I do understand what the arguments for both sides of a position are)—but I want to assure everone that I have never indented to be obstructionist or harm the project. I have admittedly gotten angry and posted on talk pages in haste and said things I wish I hadn’t, I’ve been upset by comments that seemed intended to provoke when they were not, I’ve misunderstood people’s position and argued about irrelevant points as a result, and I’ve occasionally been frustrated enough to make a rather sarcastic and pointed comment. But those are failings that I recognize and try to work on – and they are failings that all contributors will have to some extent or another. I also acknowledge that I have these failings and am more than willing to accept constructive criticism, and if anyone sees me engaged in behavior they think I should not be engaged in, they should feel free to let me know (I may not always agree with you but I do promise to always consider what you have to say).

I hope, to some extent, that explains what I am doing here.

Global warming

2007-05-10T19:41:52Z

Reginod: /* Politics of global warming */ Restored per talk page

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in global average surface temperature.
Scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]] and [[Fred Singer]] say that the patterns of global warming are naturally caused. In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], an international group of scientists established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. They concluded that recent global climate change was "very likely" caused by human activity.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>

Politicians who support the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have made the claim that there is a cause and effect relationship between increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es and air temperature.

Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." <ref>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

==Natural variability of the climate system==
The Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over the past two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia, which contrasts with the effects predicted for anthropogenic global warming.

==Politics of global warming==
The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century,{{Fact-science}} and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the United Nations (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at lease the next century. One prominent journal published a literature search by an avowed [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter claiming a "scientific consensus" overwhelmingly supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.{{Fact}}

Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== Scientists ==
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|100px|Roger Revelle, Al Gore's mentor.]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==Further Readings==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-10T19:41:02Z

Reginod: /* Effects of global warming */

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Alfred Kinsey

2007-05-10T19:19:59Z

Reginod: Reisman

Alfred Kinsey

2007-05-10T18:55:10Z

Reginod: Replaced 10% with 4% and provided sources.

Kinsey claimed that 4% of American men were homosexual <ref>“Boyce Rensberger, " How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay? Estimates Vary By Millions” ''The Washington Post'', April 17, 1993, p. A-1.”</ref> <ref> Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," ''American Journal of Psychiatry'', Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16.</ref>.
Dr. Judith Reisman <ref>
[http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html About Dr. Reisman], retreived from The Institute for Media Education 8 May 2007.</ref> who debunked the famed ''Kinsey Report'' stated,
:Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by [[Harry Hay]], the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. <ref>Judith A. Reisman, [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html ''Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution''] </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Alfred Kinsey

2007-05-10T18:52:12Z

Reginod: Removal of “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated,” explained

Alfred Kinsey

2007-05-10T18:50:17Z

Reginod: Removed “He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” See talk page for explanation

Kinsey falsely claimed that 10% of American men were [[homosexual]]. Dr. Judith Reisman <ref>
[http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html About Dr. Reisman], retreived from The Institute for Media Education 8 May 2007.</ref> who debunked the famed ''Kinsey Report'' stated,
:Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by [[Harry Hay]], the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. <ref>Judith A. Reisman, [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html ''Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution''] </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-05-10T17:23:26Z

Reginod: /* Only rules */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The only case I can see for Bible entrys in scientific articles is for historical accuracies. Otherwise, it has no point, the Bible is a religious text (somewhat of a historical text, but that's debatable), not scientific text. It'd be like having entries from the Koran in here about science. As to that point, which Bible would be used? Would entries from the Book of Maccabees count (In the Catholic Bible, but omitted in other versions, etc.)? I'm just saying you can't specify "The Bible" when there are numerous different versions and translations out there. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 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.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem with using BCE/CE, it is used all the time in academics (and not just by "liberals"). But to expressively forbid them seems like a knee-jerk reaction in itself. Why not just use the two terms (BCE/CE and BC/AD) interchangeably? [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

CPAdmin, but then why have the American Flag in the Logo of Conservapedia if you're trying to be "fair" to non-Americans? Let's have a standard here! [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = AD 2004.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of my previous comment about BCE/CE and BC/AD, if we're going to stick with AD, please use it correctly! AD should be placed before the date, not after (e.g. AD 1999), while BC goes after (50 BC). Think about what the words mean (In the year of our Lord, 1999, 50 before Christ). I edited your comment TerryK to conform to the AD dating standard. I agree with what Conservative said, the split in "Common Era, Before Common Era" is based on the birth of Jesus, and that it lacks the historical context of that should be referenced. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Such credentials should be on their user page, correct? Having yours in your name "MD" does no good. Besides, if someone has no credentials but can provide good verifiable sources that counter your claim, it should also be valid as well. Some people like me (tooting my own horn?) are very well read, but have only credentials in a certain area (some have none!). [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's "Gossip" if it's about a Conservative. It's a "Legitimate Scandal" if it's about a Liberal. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hate to be derivative, but I can think of a couple... Assume Good Faith, Be Civil, and Be Bold (as in, create articles, make articles bigger and better, write, Write, WRITE!) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others==

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Would you like me to hold the door for you, Etaroced? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That kind of proves his point, you know. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== rule 3 ==

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Let's look at some definitions of family:[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family:
:::"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.
:::9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.
:::10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."
:::I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== The 90/10 rule ==

The 90% 10% edit rule is wrong and should be removed. It just doesn't make sense. To suggest that entries of talk pages are bad is utterly muddleheaded.

The rule encourages people to edit without discussion beforehand, which is highly undesirable.

What is worse, I have seen Aschlafly use it to intimidate people who he is ideologically opposed to or who have asked difficult questions. He, of course, likes the rule because it is the criticism of his behaviour and the behaviour of those he protects that is the real target of the rule.

Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.
:The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even ''writing'' policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?
:These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not so Dan. Here is an example:
::"Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Here's another example:
::"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Then there's this:
::"I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:The intent is to have a tool that can be used to intimidate editors who irritate Aschlafly. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll grant there there is truth in your remark, Horace, except that the rule applies for the benefit of all our major editors. I don't want Conservapedia to lose a productive editor because he's being constantly irritated by an unproductive one. If you were in my shoes and wanted to do what is best for Conservapedia, then I'd expect you to impose a similar "enough is enough" rule to stop irritation. Wikipedia rules, which are far more complex and manipulable, are also used to stop the heckling at some point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I understand your position. There is a job to be done here and it can be distracting to have too many arguments. You will understand that from my perspective, however, the rule looks somewhat different. Where I perceive a wrong or unjust decision I seek to stand up and make my views heard. If I am met with the proposition that I have made too many edits on talk pages that appears to me to be an unfair criticism and a way of attempting to silence my dissent. Of course I edit on talk pages a lot. Firstly, as you know, I am interested in the theory of evolution. That page has been locked pretty much permanently. I have made a large number of edits on the talk page (and other talk pages) in relation to the locking issue. I regard that decision as just plain wrong. What about James Maxwell? I made a number of edits on the talk page which you didn't even respond to. I was trying to avoid an edit war. Should I have just gone ahead and edited the article? Secondly, I am interested in the processes here. As an editor who appears to have a number of views that are contrary to the views of those in charge, I am concerned (more than those in the majority I suspect), to see that the processes are fair. That leads to a large number of talk page posts. Those posts, in my view, are quality posts because they relate to a very important issue. They should not be used against me. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Horace, you have valid points. But we do have to build an encyclopedia here, and talk is not advancing that goal. I spent far more time today talking than building, and that needs to change. You can talk all you want, provided you help build the encyclopedia too. And that means far more than the evolution entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::From my own (short) personal experience on wikis, I have observed that much of the productive work is done on talk pages. Talk pages are used to discuss article content, resolve disputes, and other important things. I also don't think that there is a need for this rule. Are articles are steadily improving in number and in content. I see this rule as an excuse to block users that disagree. I personally think that users that disagree are very imortant to this site. They keep us honest. It might be somewhat annoying, if someone who disagrees with you is constantly saying "Prove it" but it makes you find citations and back up you reasoning and the like, which makes Conservapedia a better and more credible site. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Also, if one looks at how "normal" encyclopedias are produced, or for that matter just about any other kind of publishing project, the dicussions about the project usually heavily outweigh the actual finished product. I'd guess that for something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, the paperwork and correspondence would probably account for something like 90% of the final output, rather than the opposite. And there's a reason for that. What we're doing here is collaborative editing and publishing, and whenever something is done collaboratively, by a team, good and frequent communications between the participants is absolutely essential. This 10/90 rule may seem like a good idea on the surface, but in the end, it will only result in articles of much lower quality. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Agreed with CP Admin. Due to the nature of my work I tend to contribute almost solely to talk pages (as in I don't have as much time to devote to producing a coherent article from the ground up, etc..). Besides, I'd rather see the information hashed out in the talk pages than an all out "edit war" happen. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==

'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

Whoops--ok, no quotes from [[Harriet Tubman]] (Helped slaves to escape to [[Canada]]), [[Martin Luther King Jr]] (Broke racial segregation laws), [[Oliver North]] (Iran-Contra Scandal), [[Mohandas Gandhi]] (rebellion against the British Empire), or the [[Declaration of Independence]] (Treason against His Royal Highness, King George the Third), then? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe change it to:

:'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting (as of 2007) unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

:--[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Does that include The Law in countries like Saudi Arabia? I mean, we wouldn't want to suggest that women should drive cars, or appear in public without a male family member to escort them, or anything. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::OH--or smuggle Bibles into Communist North Korea. Can't have any of that subversive activity, nosirree! It's '''the law'''!

The intent of the rule should be clear to anybody who is taking this project seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I believe he has a point, nonetheless. The law is going to be different depending on where the lawbreaking editor lives. While his suggestion is rather silly, more detail could be added. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The original reason for this rule was because somebody was linking to a site that supported abortion clinic violence. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, so, what about if we write an article ABOUT a terroristic organization. Can we cite their website, even though it repesents an illegal organization? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hope you can see my point. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I do see what you're saying. If a situation like that came up, I think it would probably be safest to ask Aschlafly. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: The above change is good, clarifying that the rule applies to currently unlawful activity. But honestly I think that's obvious.

: I don't I like links to terrorist organizations, even though well-intentioned to expose them. But I defer to the Sysop wisdom on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree, Andy. This Sysop, for one, was not consulted about adding links to terrorist organizations. I suspect not many were consulted, and I will remove any I find. Perhaps non-active URL's could be added to the documentation? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources and legality- clarifications and opinions ==

Currently the commandments state "No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed"- does this mean groups advocating unlawful activity while it is unlawful or does it also include groups that are advocating that a law be changed to let a currently illegal act be legal? {{unsigned|JoshuaZ}}

== Only rules ==

Since a number of sysops have openly stated that they are enforcing rules that are not found in the Commandments (and a number of other syspos have enforced rules not found in the Comandments, without explicitly saying that was what they were doing), it seems to me that the statement “This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia. These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia.” doesn’t really belong on this page.
It is misleading, and causes problems. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*The page clearly states the Guidelines also govern the site. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:That makes the statement, “This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia.", more confusing not less—since the guidelines are being treated like rules.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments Do Not Apply to Conservapedia's Front Page ==

As per discussions on the talk page of the main page, and in Conservapedia Talk, apparently these commandments don't apply to Conservapedia's main page. I suggest adding a note to that effect to the commandment page, also indicating any other pages on the site which are exempt from the commandments.[[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 03:35, 10 May 2007 (EDT)