Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Encyclopedic Content

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed. one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --TimSvendsen 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)

  • Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted one because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. PhilipB 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
  • Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ SharonS 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to prevent a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --TimSvendsen 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --TimSvendsen 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --TimSvendsen 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. PhilipB 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. JoshuaZ 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "encyclopedic content," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on South Park it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --TimSvendsen 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)

To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.JoshuaZ 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --TimSvendsen 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)
  • 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? I posted this elsewhere, but feel perhaps this is the better place for it. --TK 00:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
South Park has had a huge affect on American society in general, and has been praised for taking on social issues. In the last episode (a new one is on in 15 minutes), they used the N-word 43 times, to great applause. It has a huge audience. It's notable, and I suspect the only reason removal has been proposed is it's vulgarity. I mean, there needs to be a distinction between "hollywood gossip" and truly notable stuff; Lord of the Rings is notable. Harry Potter is notable. South Park is notable. When I think non-notable, I think something really, really obscure; the person who was cast as "frightened child #7" in an art-house movie a decade ago. --Hojimachongtalk 00:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Essays by users are a nice portion of wikipedia that would be considered "unencylopedic", but I find a lot of them to be funny, informative, or useful. WP:agf (assume good faith) is a good guideline that I would consider to be an essay, and WP:assumebadfaith is an excellent joke. I like essays so much that i created a few things for this -pedia, including template:essays, Cp:essays, and Cp:reason. I probably will create the essay "jews should be allowed well lit kabals" at some point, because all i ever hear about when things go wrong is "it must be a dark jewish kabal!" At least god lets us pick our friends... My point is, not all things are unfit for CP just because they are unencyclopedic! TheVoiceOfReason 18:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Possible Definitions

Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[1]
"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[2]
So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.Dpbsmith 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --TimSvendsen 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Unofficial Poll

Encyclopedic Content Commandment.


1.--TimSvendsen 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
2.-- PhilipB 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
3 MountainDew 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)


1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. Dpbsmith 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see Inherit the Wind, The Passion of The Christ, Birth of a Nation, An Inconvenient Truth, Farehenheit 9/11 as all candidates for articles. JoshuaZ 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
Reply I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --TimSvendsen 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?JoshuaZ 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --TimSvendsen 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. JoshuaZ 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
I might add that the Bias in Wikipedia page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on Bias in Wikipedia are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--Aschlafly 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
Reply The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

"Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"

This discussion, and the one at AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:

People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...) Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. Dpbsmith 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. Dpbsmith 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--Smalltownhick 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

WWII German Entries

We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. User:Will N.

American English spelling and foreign names.

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? JoshuaZ 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

  • We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of Hapsburg (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ SharonS 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's name. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --David R 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Hapsburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Habsburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. MountainDew 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to sign on with MountainDew on this one, with the further observations that, particularly with personal names, while it is polite and well-mannered to use the named individual's preferred spelling, one should also keep in mind the limits of keyboards and editors' knowledge of how to generate non-English characters or characters with diacritical marks. For instance, there are accents and double-accents in a number of Hungarian proper names, and it would be ridiculous to expect non-Hungarians to be familiar with them or with the process of generating them. Perhaps in such instances we could have a template that the article author could use to request assistance from the computer-savvy in the crowd for such things. Niwrad 00:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Have thought about this some more and decided to create a simple help article and a template to request help with diacritical marks. The article (Diacritical marks) recommends that such marks be rendered temporarily with standard punctuation; e.g., a lower-case e with a circumflex over it should be marked as !e^!. Then the author should include the template {{diacritical}} at the top of the article; the template automatically includes the article in a category named Editing help requested so the more experienced editors can easily find such requests for help. Niwrad 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles?

While changing Earth from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) Doesn't matter. Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later at any convenient time and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) English (metric). Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) Metric (English). Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) English only. Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) Metric only. "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" Dpbsmith 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--BenjaminS 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Given that Dpbsmith just provided all and sundry with a really simple way of doing unit conversions, I don't see it as a huge bother. Just include the procedure in a 'how-to' page for prospective article editors. Niwrad 01:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am personally offended that anyone would claim that we should use metric units. God and America both use the traditional American system of measurement and EVERY fact on this site should be forced into the same format.--GodAsMyWitness 12:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If anything, God probably uses Hebrew units of measure. Last time I checked, the account of Noah and the flood makes reference to cubits. I don't recall seeing 'cubits' listed anywhere in the standard measures listed by ANSI. Niwrad 23:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer option 2. Sulgran 23:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Option 1 Does google convert units into cubits? It does! Myk

  • After prayer, God has told me Option 2 would be best. And he wanted me to remind Niwrad, he didn't even think about America until much later. (LOL) --Terry 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

External Links, Bots

I propose the following. External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject. and Unauthorized bots are prohibited.

Thoughts? Geo. 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' Tsumetai 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)
And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. JoshuaZ 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. Geo. 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). JoshuaZ 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I created a list to compile possible rules.Geo. 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? Geo. 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines

  • The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
  • Sites should have factual content

Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling

I think Conservapedia should merely slightly favor American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. Conservative 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. Geo. 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --<<-David R->> 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. Conservative 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --<<-David R->> 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
  • Let's see his "proof" that he was born an American! :p (that's a joke) --Terry 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? Geo. 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. Geo. 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

What counts as "gossip"

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like facebook and myspace come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? Tmtoulouse 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. MountainDew 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)


Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . Sulgran 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" Geo. 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. JoshuaZ 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. MountainDew 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. Geo. 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Sock & Meat Puppets

Opinions? Sulgran 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. Geo. 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
I rather think we have had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. Dpbsmith 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
How about, Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited Geo. 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.
Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. Tsumetai 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited. work? Geo. 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this might matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --Sid 3050 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. Conservative 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of tone would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of tone coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --<<-David R->> 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... Conservapedia Webmaster 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)
One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is Avoid instruction creep. The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "Instruction creep occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."
So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. Dpbsmith 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)
There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. JoshuaZ 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "mini-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --<<-David R->> 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. JoshuaZ 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" RobS 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a softer tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --<<-David R->> 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. Wikien-1 has a running thread on how its going over here. RobS 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. RobS 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)