Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --Ed Poor Talk 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
The number of his gaffes. --MugiK 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example John McCain, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, the choice should be clear.
"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when George W. Bush became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --AlanS 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--RossC 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with truth not, (per Wikipedia), verifiability.
The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
Philip J. Rayment 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the Obama entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--Aschlafly 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article did say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

Admin only?

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start taxing me! - Rod Weathers 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive voting. But I see your point. - Rod Weathers 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --Ed Poor Talk 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. Bugler 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)Bugler 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Who are these Liberal administrators? HenryS 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Oh Henry, look and read. Bugler 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "Anti-democratic cliquism"! Philip J. Rayment 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. Bugler 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Given that your side has not actually given much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --Ed Poor Talk 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. Philip J. Rayment 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)

I see. That seems rather reasonable. - Rod Weathers 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. Bugler 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get anything right! Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Only one of those, Klumpers. Bugler 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. HelpJazz 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.LowKey 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Great American Tradition

In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimSell (talk)

Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. -- JArneal 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

My comment

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--Aschlafly 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "liberal denial" Philip J. Rayment 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries. Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. Bugler 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block you for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. Philip J. Rayment 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
And calling me a liar isn't a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. Bugler 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. Philip J. Rayment 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia should present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia is presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. JHanson 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested a week ago, to no avail. HelpJazz 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. Bugler 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims are valid evidence). Philip J. Rayment 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Amazing. Simply amazing. I say "Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question, Bugler simply says Conservapedia presents evidence. Is it possible to completely ignore what was just said and spout dogma in a more blatant way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JHanson (talk)
Hardly. Philip J. Rayment 21:01, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Nuetral light?

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --Rcollins03 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, almost. Murray 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

The Poll

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? Learn together 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I did: "Others are free to ask questions on the project talk page." --Ed Poor Talk 12:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Non-Sysop Opinions

I'm adding my two cents.

  • Religion: I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that any president of the US needs to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
  • Birthplace: I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
  • Political gaffes: I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
  • In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.

--Hsmom 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Mom, what you've said here makes more sense than any other person's remarks on this matter, including my own previous remarks! --Ed Poor Talk 12:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now.

  • CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor. --₮K/Talk 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)
You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)
  • Quibbling slightly, I would say rather that the point of this project is to provide trustworthy information. See my essay Wikipedia:Truth. --Ed Poor Talk 12:48, 3 December 2008 (EST)
(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.
You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. -- JArneal 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that don't actually provide logic and evidence! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! Philip J. Rayment 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"

Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --₮K/Talk 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)
TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. Bugler 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)

"...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. Bugler 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)
And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. Bugler 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)
You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. Philip J. Rayment 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! Bugler 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Personal remarks

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

  • didn't want to see the proof
  • don't deserve an answer
  • enjoy playing disloyal games
  • exactly what you and others did to me
  • retract the unjustified slurs
  • this mysterious clique of yours
  • trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --Ed Poor Talk 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

You missed a few, Ed:
  • you have a double standard
  • What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant ... but disloyal and subversive.
  • endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting
And that's just from posts in this section. I've yet to see you take anybody to task for labelling me "liberal".
But the point remains, as I have pointed out before, that sometimes personal remarks are justified. I'd also dispute that "retract the unjustified slurs" is a personal remark. Rather, it's a justifiable request to retract comments that are both slurs and unjustified.
Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Compromise proposals

This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --Bolly 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)
An interesting thought. -- JArneal 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)
As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. Bugler 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --Bolly 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart I don't see anything good coming from all this, but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the False Prophet and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --₮K/Talk 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. Bugler 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
You have still not justified the claim of "censorship", despite being called on to do so. As for compromise, see my comments below. Philip J. Rayment 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)
In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --Bolly 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
When side A wishes to present both sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. Bugler 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
To me, it sounds like I'm on side A and you're on side B. Philip J. Rayment 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. -- JArneal 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. Bugler 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Much of it has been and still is posted as established fact. The article until recently said unambiguously "Obama is a Muslim", and it still says that Obama uses the "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan. And there's been no evidence of "the two schools of thought [being] presented with equal esteem". Where, for example, is there even the slightest hint that there is no such thing as a "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan? As for insulting and intemperate language, try looking in a mirror. Philip J. Rayment 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --Bolly 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I much admire your efforts, Bolly, but I think that that is what talk pages are for...-- JArneal 20:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Sure, if thats where you think this should go, I only posted here because this was supposed to be a place for resolving the issues that some have with the Obama page. --Bolly 20:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Of course. Though I wish you luck in trying to get your ideas across to Philip and his acolytes. Bugler 20:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Please, Bugler, stop being divisive by labeling groups as 'cliques'. You said that "prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact." You are almost correct in saying this (I will get to that later), but much of this speculation (we seem to have agreed it is speculation) comes before many undisputed facts about Barack Obama. This is the same as saying these opinions are more important than these facts. Also, the title of the section most opposed by many users, "Barack Obama will likely be the First Muslim President," is an opinion. The opinions should be put at the bottom of the page, in order to promote the importance of undisputed facts. Surely you could agree to this. I have offered multiple compromises now. Please consider them.-- JArneal 20:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • I believe the "clique" remark was made by Bolly, the editor who proposed a compromise above. Does everyone need a little cooling off period? I also remind others that it isn't Bugler's decision, it is Andy's. Take a breath, everyone....have a soothing beverage! --₮K/Talk 21:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Yeh my bad! I just used the terms 'clique' and 'posse' to differentiate the two groups, there was absolutely no offence intended at all and I'm more then happy to change either of the names for sake of ease. But I second TK, lets all take a deep breath in and out, and move on. A lot of unpleasantness has gone before in this, why not, purely in the interests of the project, drop all of these name callings and so on. Let's just draw a line through the above and start with a clean slate. Sound good? --Bolly 21:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
To Bolly's defense, Bugler was the first to use the term "clique" in this discussion. And I would gladly be discussing this with Mr. Schlafly if he would participate in this conversation.-- JArneal 21:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
And it was Bolly who first used the term 'posse'. These are just convenient shorthands; but use the terms 'Team C' and Team P' if you consider it preferable. Bugler 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Bolly is using them as convenient shorthands, but one of them didn't start that way. Philip J. Rayment 09:01, 3 December 2008 (EST)

My response to compromise proposal

I thank Bolly for attempting to find a compromise. I've never been one to accept compromising the truth with a lie, but this situation is not (as a whole) as black and white as that, so I'm prepared to consider suggestions. However, I would make the following points:

  • Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere.
  • I consider my actions and argument so far to already be a huge compromise.
    • I, along with most others (including administrators) who have expressed disagreement with the article, would like to see the entire section about Obama being a Muslim removed, along with other improvements. (For example, the statement that Obama referred to the "57 states" is in there as an "insight", not as a blooper.)
    • That doesn't mean that there may not be a few valid points in that section that could be kept; just that that section as a whole should not be there.
    • Even if that section was to be kept, it should not be given such prominence, including above the table of contents.
    • Nevertheless, all I have tried to do so far is remove three spurious claims from that section. Only removing three spurious claims when I believe the section as a whole should be removed already is in effect a massive compromise. Yet the other side refuses to even accept that much! And at the same time they have the gall to accuse us of not accepting compromise!

Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

What I'm seeing is that both sides have several points they seem willing to compromise on and some they simply won't. For example, the posse is adamant that the "Obama will likely be the first muslim president" is important and relavent and they aren't going to let it be removed. On the other hand, maybe they will agree to move the section to the first slot underneath the contents box and just have a mention of the accusations in the top section. Then a series of counterclaims can be added by the clique underneath the current list. To me, that seems like a decent compromise that, while not making everyone happy, will at least help to allieviate some of the tension. --Bolly 21:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)
He'll be the first Muslim president in about as precisely a fashion as Bill Clinton was the first black president. --Ed Poor Talk 21:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Ed, I understand you're position and your frustration, but I heard a saying once that "a good compromise is one that leaves everyone angry". The whole point of compromise is that you don't get everything you think you should, and the other side gets the same. The posse aren't going to just let their list be deleted. So instead, you might have to settle for it being moved and adding counter evidence. "let the reader decide" to quote several editors in this debate. --Bolly 21:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Thank you Ed, for your participation in this conversation. The more sysops we have talking about this the better. And if someone who likes the current Obama article would propose a compromise, that would be appreciated, I'm sure. We need to start moving toward an ultimate compromise, or all of this is useless.-- JArneal 21:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Philip said: Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere. Now does he mean, 'unless Andy cuts this Gordian knot'? Well, he has. Andy has made his views quite clear, and these are to support the status quo which is a compromise: none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts, just as evidence to be considered. Given Philip's impenitent and rebellious behaviour, one is tempted to interpret Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere as Unless Andy does as I say, which is totally unacceptable. Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected as those of teh ultimate arbiter. For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia, and leads one to question his motives in doing so. Bugler 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)
"...which is a compromise...": Huh? How is that a "compromise"?
"...none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts...": Absolutely false, as I've already pointed out.
"... one is tempted to interpret [Philip's comment] as Unless Andy does as I say, which is totally unacceptable.": Which totally ignores that it's not just my opinion, but that of many people including senior administrators, as has been repeatedly pointed out, but you keep ignoring or misrepresenting.
"For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia...": No, making false claims about Obama is damaging Conservapedia.
"Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected ...": I haven't mentioned this yet, but this is one of the most hypocritical claims in this issue. The hypocrisy is in decrying me for not respecting the leader, whilst the article grossly disrespects the leader-elect of the people posting this rubbish! (And no, it is not just fair criticism, which I don't have a problem with; it goes far beyond that.)
Philip J. Rayment 08:55, 3 December 2008 (EST)
You are outdoing yourself in the personal remarks today, Philip, both in this section and in your edit summary. As for the 'points' you make, I'm too bored to try and explain to you yet again, so, as TK suggests, will just leave you to crow away like a cockerel on a dunghill. Bugler 09:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Is that a promise? To stay out of this discussion?? Oh please let it be so! As for personal remarks, that edit comment is apt. Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Ah, Last wordism!. It just gets better and better. Bugler 09:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)
How does you offering to withdraw from the discussion amount to an accusation of last-wordism against me? Philip J. Rayment 20:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Did you really just block somebody and then reply accusing him of last wordism? Mikek 10:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

"You Say Tomato, I Say Tomatoe; Let's Call The Whole Thing Off!"

So far as many are concerned, this whole "debate", "argument" or "discussion" is pretty much moot. Andy has stated his reasoning, and as the 'Editor in Chief' of Conservapedia, that's it. People can continue to make this some kind of weird parlor game, an endless debating society, some sort of faux Wikipedia tribunal or commission if they want...

OR we can just simply ignore this bogus "issue" and leave the insurrectionists to scream into the wind. There is no argument without someone to argue with, right? Silly and petty disputes, generated merely to satisfy the vain tyranny of someone who constantly demands to be right, never accepts any logical thought he doesn't agree with, are a giant time waster. The United Nations, with its endless talk, talk, talk is not something we aspire to emulate here.

Wikipedia has countless thousands of pages of just such arguments stored away, and if this is someone's idea of being productive -- engaging in circular, repetitive and seemingly endless talk -- enjoy yourselves! My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore the people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill. --₮K/Talk 05:24, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Since when is the issue "bogus"? Since you decreed it to be so? I also note that this particular page, which I've said did not have much merit, was started by a senior administrator, and one you consider a friend. So you're rejecting his attempts now?
"Andy has stated his reasoning, and as the 'Editor in Chief' of Conservapedia, that's it.": So you concur that Andy simply decides encyclopaedia article content by decree, regardless of the evidence and logic (Andy's own requirements for determining truth) and the views of senior administrators? Andy himself has never claimed that, but I think that it's very telling that his supporters in this, such as you and Bugler, can see his actions for what they are, deciding truth by his opinion.
"...vain tyranny of someone who constantly demands to be right, never accepts any logical thought he doesn't agree with...": I know who that description fits, and it ain't me.
"My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore the people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill.": So now you're suggesting that we just ignore Andy? Or, if you'd prefer a serious comment, that's the fallacious argument of begging the question.
Philip J. Rayment 09:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

In a way, TK's right though... pages like this never really accomplish anyhting. CP has a sort of "go argue on the talk page because you're easier to ignore there and we can 90/10 block you if you are persistent" policy. On some issues it really comes down to what Andy thinks and anyone can argue 'til they're blue in the face w/ out getting anything changed. I've washed my hands of the Barack Obama article because I realize it probably won't ever change. --Ben Talk 11:10, 3 December 2008 (EST)

See that comment above from BenjaminS? That should never happen. No user should ever be forced to think that they have no say in a matter.
I weep for the future of Conservapedia. It has become a dictatorship where opinions against the leader's are silenced. It has become a hive for people who put on conservative masks and hide underneath the protection of this leader's infinite powers to further their own ends. It has become a shelter to those who deny the necessity of logic and reject the importance of evidence. It has become a slum where those who make every effort to end the poverty are stopped, so that the dictator's ultimate rule is preserved. It has become a battleground whose spectators laugh and whose warriors destroy the very thing they are fighting for. Conservapedia has become a failure. But it is not over yet. Conditions may yet improve for this endeavor. -- JArneal 19:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Worse, BenjaminS is not just a "user", and one of the earliest, but also one of the first administrators. Philip J. Rayment 21:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)
My mistake. I'm sorry for any disrespect I caused there. -- JArneal 20:30, 4 December 2008 (EST)


Mark my words, the only way Andy will change his mind is if Tim, Phil, and Cons all quit, and then he'll only change his mind when, after a few months, he realized that they were the only honest editors he had.-JudahB 11:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Hey! I'm honest. I'm not very interested in this endless discussion though.--CPalmer 11:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Even though he said "editors", perhaps he meant "administrators", although even so he's understated it. Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)