Talk:Main Page/archive18

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Media Bias

I'm not contesting the article, but the phrase "Hillary Clinton in the News 20 Times More Than GOP Candidates" is clearly a misinterpretation of the cited survey. 20 times more people thought that Hillary Clinton was the most news-addressed candidate (likely becuase it's true), but the margin is not addressed in the article or in the survey. The 'twenty times more prevalent' assessment is baseless. Ozymandias 10:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

One state, two state, red state, blue state...

Given the conservative/republican theme of this wiki, I'm surprised at the default blue of the page. Aren't the "blue" states the other side, as it were? Of course, I never understood how red - the colour of the Communist revolution - was picked for the Republican states to begin with. PFoster 17:52, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Red state/blue state came due to their use as an arbitrary metric in the 2000 election if I recall, the terms then grew from that to be used more generally. I think there was some plan to alternate red and blue or base it upon the incumbent or something like that, but once the terms came into general use the plan fell by the wayside. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

They're just colors. Don't read too far in to it. --9820 18:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

In Australia, Red is generally associated with the Labor (read liberal, left-wing, socialist) Party, whereas Blue is generally associated with the Liberal (read conservative, right-wing) Party, and as this is an international forum (despite the logo), the colours are not inappropriate. AndrewDavid 10:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

The LA Times

Looking at the main page today, I noticed that the LA Times article has been up for nearly a month now with nary a change, and now it seems rather stale. This, of course, got me to wonder, "What qualifies for a main page big article?" Are there plans for a "featured article" type affair, or is it for particularly interesting news, or some other thing?

Anyway, yeah. Just thought you'd like to know my thoughts.--Offeep 23:42, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"

This phrase from the front page strikes me as a little harsh - does C-pedia mean to imply that the 97.8% of American high school-aged kids that aren't home-schooled are "garbage?" PFoster 13:31, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't describe a human being as "garbage". The metaphor of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" obviously refers to the teaching of these students (the "Garbage In") and their resultant views and beliefs (the "Garbage Out"). The beliefs and attitudes of the student pictured on the front page is a product of what he has been learning and not learning at public school. Lord help him, and maybe He could if public school weren't so godless.--Aschlafly 13:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
If the public schools included God, it would open the way for atheists, Hindus, Muslims, animists, and every non-Christian to be hateful and spiteful of their school system. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:17, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
They're not already? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Aren't the majority of Americans Christian, at least nominally? If so, that seems to make your (Hoji's) logic: Exclude God, and offend the majority, or include God, and offend the minority. Please excuse me if that doesn't make much sense. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
You guys love to blame the school system for everything.... but you do see that religious schools and churches in general have been responsible for more than a few of American society problems too right? Just checking.... SirJim 15:28, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
What exactly have religious schools done? What society problems have churches caused? Please, do tell. Bohdan 15:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Does little boys being abused by Catholic priests and then the Church trying to cover it up count as a "society problem?" PFoster 15:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools have a far greater problem of sex abuse and cover-up. "As many as 10 percent of public school students are targets of unwanted sexual advances, and the perpetrators are often popular, award-winning teachers, a new report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education states."[1] It's liberal bias that singles out the Catholic church for criticism on this issue.
The Columbine-Virginia Tech massacres are anti-Christian and uniquely the product of godless public schools, I'm afraid. Often the killers have even admitted their anti-Christian motives.--Aschlafly 16:42, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
So by your logic, whenever someone commits a terrible act, the system they come from is to blame? So we can blame the entire religious world for the few zealots that bomb clinics? We can consider all pro wrestlers dangerous because Chris Benoit killed his family? You're attacking an entire system because of a few people. Besides, the fact that so many American are still Conservative despite graduating from public schools shows that us liberals aren't quite as coersive as thought. SirJim 18:59, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't believe that's the logic at all. All schools (i.e. government, religious, and other) have problems; none is perfect. The argument is that excluding teaching about the source of morality from government schools will inevitably result in many people abandoning that morality (some will get it from other sources). Religious schools aren't perfect, but because they do teach about the source of morality, the problems they have are significantly fewer and not due to their worldview, but to departures from that worldview. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Also, many catholic schools, such as my own, are far from coercive. Most of the students in my Massachusetts catholic Private school are liberal, so environment, not school, is the main determining factor in politics. Zachary Richardson 17:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip, that's a circular argument, religious schools don't have problems because they present morality, and when they do have problems, it's because someone went outside their teaching.... So I can't say I agree with your issue, and public schools do teach morality, they just don;t teach that morality is dictated by god (which by the way, a lot of Christian Philosiphers argue against... but this is about the main page and that's better discussed elsewhere) SirJim 21:51, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

No, it's not a circular argument; you have misrepresented what I said. I didn't say that religious schools don't have problems. I said that they have fewer problems, because they teach about the source of morality (i.e. God). And that the problems they do have is due to going outside that teaching. Whether you accept the premises of the argument or not, the logic is valid and not circular.
Yes, government schools do teach morality, but because they don't teach about the source of morality, the morality they teach is (a) sometimes wrong, and (b) more importantly, without basis. If you teach that there is no God (which is effectively the teaching of evolution etc.), then the only basis for morality becomes whatever you think seems good, which is no basis at all. Therefore, if some students decide to "improve the gene pool" by knocking off a few fellow students, that seems good to them. That is, their actions are consistent with the teaching they received, whereas the actions of paedophile priests is inconsistent with their teaching.
Philip J. Rayment 22:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
That's the same thing, you said Quote "they have fewer problems, because they teach about the source of morality (i.e. God). And that the problems they do have is due to going outside that teaching." Applying that same logic, you can say that Government schools teach morality, and whenever a tragedy or trouble happens, it's because someone went outside that morality.
On another subject all together, as I stated, even Christian Debaters and Philosiphers don't always agree that God is the source of morality, for several problems arrise when using that logic. Also, your comments state that Quote "Therefore, if some students decide to "improve the gene pool" by knocking off a few fellow students, that seems good to them. That is, their actions are consistent with the teaching they received, whereas the actions of paedophile priests is inconsistent with their teaching." No serial killer ever came out and said that they were doing the right thing, and to my knowledge, none of them have ever attributed their killings to any form of Eugenics, as for the priests, I'm yet to see any Catholic literature that advocates sexual acts with minors.... and just to throw some dirt, Catholics are taught that morality comes from God as Well SirJim 16:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not the same thing I said. When government schools teach that there is no absolute basis for morals (i.e. no God), and that morals are what we choose them to be (which is the logical conclusion if there is no absolute basis for them) and that we are merely evolved animals, then it is not going outside that teaching to do bad things to others.
What is wrong with the logic that God is the source of morality?
You claim that no serial killer ever said that they were doing the right thing. What you mean, is the no serial killer that you know of has ever said this. And so what if they haven't? They don't need to say it for it to be the case. But here's one example where one did:
If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him. (Jeffrey Dahmer)
I don't know what you are getting at with the bit about the priests. They are clearly acting contrary to their teaching.
Philip J. Rayment 01:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
There are several serious problem with God as the Source of all morality, but that debate will just take up space here, I'd be happy to discuss it over our talk pages though, also, could you please tell me where you found that quote from Dahmer. I was looking for some time, but I could not find that particular quote. Thank you SirJim 16:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
The quote from Jeffrey Dahmer came from here. Feel free to explain your position on God not being the source of morality on my talk page, but you'd better do some article edits before you do, else our conversation is likely to get interrupted by you getting banned. Philip J. Rayment 06:44, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, where did the killers in either the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings say that anti-Christian sentiment was a motivation? TigersRoar 21:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Why, what planet were you a-roarin' on, Tiger? The two Columbine killers left diaries behind in which they declared their intentions, and the motivation behind the same. So did the Virginia Tech killer. And in the Columbine case, witnesses caught this exchange between one of the killers (I think it was Klebold) and one of his victims:
  • Q. Do you believe in God?
  • A. Yes.
  • Q. Why? (followed by a point-blank shot to the victim's face)
Does that answer your question?--TerryHTalk 21:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Not true, while that is a widely reported myth, the final investigation concluded, based on eye-witness testimony, that if that particular event happened, it was with a sutdent who survived the attacks. SirJim 22:06, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
The anti-Christian animosity is evident in the Columbine killers' writings, and in an article about the Virginia Tech killer that was discussed here after that massacre. You can find this easily on the internet. I would find it for you, if I felt you had an open mind about it. Unfortunately, I expect that you don't sincerely doubt what we are saying, but merely doubt we can prove it and want to put us to the trouble to do so. I've got higher priority objectives right now. Take a look at their writings themselves if you're genuinely interested. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:12, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Just to be clear, the conversation that we had here ( ) sussed out a lot of evidence that he seemed to be deranged and had bizarre religious beliefs by almost anyone's standards. That said, he seemed to think of himself as a Christian, and found himself disappointed in his religion. Granted, the things that a mass murderer finds disappointing are probably things to be embraced. Just sayin', I don't think he saw himself as outside of all religion, despising it. He seemed to see himself as religious, Christian even, but also insane and deriving poor conclusions. Aziraphale 23:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT) <-Disappointed in his dinner...
For the benefit of other readers, the above comment by Aziraphale is referring to the Virginia Tech killer, whose computer messages (likely containing hatred) continue to be withheld from the public. The Columbine investigators did release the writings of the Columbine killers, which contained anti-Christian hatred.--Aschlafly 00:58, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ooo, good catch. The conversation I linked to was around the time of the Virginia Tech incident, I don't think any comment in there has anything to do with Columbine, nor do I know much about the details of the Columbine incident. Aziraphale 15:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-clarified for your protection...
For the record, TerryH, that was widely reported as being what Cassie Bernall said, but it was later found to be a different exchange with a different student. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the week shows exposed breasts

Is there some reason we're putting nudity on the main page? Seems inappropriate considering this resource is being used by students.--Conservateur 15:05, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy has stated in the past that artistic nudity (in the specific statement, he was referring to Michelangelo's David) does not merit censorship. This was, however, several months ago. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:15, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
There is a difference between presentation in art and in pornography, in which one merits display, and the other merits...well you know what.--Elamdri 15:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I'd love to know what that difference is, because I can't see it. Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Same here. Xenophobia 22:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing wrong with the depiction of the human body, male or female, but there is something wrong with pornography (Greek: "a record of prostitutes") and the gratuitous use of nudity purely for sexual gratification. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Fox, thats exactly my thoughts.--Elamdri 06:04, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
First, what's to say that "artistic" nakedness is not "gratuitous use of nudity purely for sexual gratification", and second, who says there's "nothing wrong with the depiction of the [naked] human body, male or female"? Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent)I didn't say "all art is not porn" - I deliberately didn't follow that line of reasoning. As for their being nothing inherently wrong with the human body, Gen 2:25: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed," "for shame can only arise from a consciousness of sinful or irregular conduct" (Clarke); "Their bodies were sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust of the flesh," (Keil & Delitzsch); the implication being that any sinfulness is purely in the heart and mind of the beholder. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Acknowledging that some art can be porn does not really answer the question. Yes, Genesis does say that they were naked and not ashamed, and I agree that it is sin that makes it shameful, but "all have sinned", so it is (should be) shameful for all. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
That implies that we can only sin, and have no choice in whether we sin or not. Which is not the case at all, otherwise we could all do whatever we fancied, using "original sin" and thus a preordained state of sin as our justification. I can admire great art without sinning, and I'm sure most others can too; it is the perverse and flawed mind which finds arousal in otherwise innocent expression. moreover, the blood of the Lamb cleansed us of sin; He died that we would no longer be sinful. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Couldn't you also admire pornography without sinning? Couldn't you also walk around naked without sinning? Is being able to "admire great art without sinning" really the point? Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
If it isn't the point, then what is? Pornography, incidentally, is a form of prostitution, which is considered differently. You are trying to obfuscate the argument, which is answered quite clearly above :) Either we are redeemed by the blood of Yeshua Ha Moshiach or the New Testament isn't worth the paper its printed upon. The sin is committed by the individual who takes unnatural pleasure in innocent nudity; the sin is the willful inclination, attitude and thought: just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about sex outside of marriage equals fornication. Those who walk in the Spirit can easily discern whether their reaction to a particular image is of innocent appreciation of form or looking "at a woman with lust for her" (Matthew 5:28) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:59, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
The point is that you seem to be splitting hairs. "Pornography" is wrong because of the intentions of the person producing it. "Art" is okay if the intentions of the person viewing it is okay. That's two different rationales being applied with the effect of condemning one with one rationale and justifying the other with a different rationale. Philip J. Rayment 10:11, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
LoL, I'm not. You are. I've already stated that pornography can never be anything other than a sin because it is fornication. A painting of a naked human is not always pornographic simply on the basis that it depicts nudity - that's preposterous. Yes, some paintings are deliberately pornographic, but that doesn't mean that all paintings featuring nudity are. It's a very simple distinction, Scripturally based, as I answered above. Furthermore, one has to accept that often disapproval of nudity is a result of cultural norms/social conditioning, NOT anything that is contained within Scripture. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
You're confusing me. Are you saying that nothing is inherently pornographic; that it is only pornographic depending on how it is used? If so, then perhaps it's okay to stick some "pornography" on the Main Page because we aren't going to use it that way? If not, then what is the distinction between pornography and other "artistic" nudity? Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
In the words of SCJ Potter Stewart;
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"
Quite true. IMHO, The picture on the front page cannot reasonably be interpreted as pornography. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
In other words, "I don't know how to explain the distinction, so just take my word for it that they are not the same thing". Sorry, but if the distinction can't be explained, perhaps there isn't one.
I'll add that this is an issue that I've never looked into to any significant extent, and during this conversation I've thought that perhaps someone will actually be able to make me realise that there is a difference. The problem is, so far it hasn't happened, which tends to reinforce my view that there is no distinction that can be made.
Philip J. Rayment 01:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Fox did a good job of pointing out the distinction; pornography is produced for the sole purpose of arousing sexual feelings in the viewer. That is the distinction between pornography and "normal" art. Nudity in and of itself cannot be sinful, but a graphic depiction of sex - obscenity - is. But to say that all nudity is obscenity? That is (to use the words of Fox) preposterous. We can safely say that this painting (a very famous piece) was not produced for the sole purpose of providing sexual gratification in the viewer. Following this line of logic, I come to the conclusion that Michelangelo's David (well, a huge portion of art from the Renaissance period) should be banned for being pornographic. That is simply untrue. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

As I said, it's getting confusing. I thought that's what Fox was saying was the definition of pornography, then I thought that he said that I had that wrong.

Can I please ask for a simple and clear definition of what makes something pornographic or not. Is it, for example, according to the intentions of the person producing the material, the person viewing the material, or what?

But responding to more of your message, part of your argument is simply stating your beliefs as being self-evidently true ("this is simply untrue"), which, if was the case, would not be giving me reason to question. I'm asking for reasons, not bland statements.

Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

According to the Princeton word database, pornography has only the quality to stimulate sexual desire or arousal. Therefore, if sexual arousal is merely a by-product or derivative outcome, and not the sole intended reaction, then it isn't classified as "pornography."--Elamdri 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Taking the first sentence as the definition and the second as your comment on that definition, "artistic" nude photographs in publications like Playboy are not pornography, because they've been done "artistically", hence do not have "only the quality to stimulate..."? Perhaps to put the question more broadly, who decides if stimulation is the only quality they have? My opinion on that definition is that it is very rubbery. Philip J. Rayment 08:40, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
I got rid of the "masterpiece" of the week. Here is a location for better works of art: Conservative 13:30, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip J. Rayment, you asked for a "simple and clear" definition of pornography which sets it apart from tasteful artistic nudity. I'm not sure that there *is* a "simple and clear" definition to offer. Some concepts cannot be broken down into simple nuggets. Abstract thought, critical thinking skills, and analytical thought must be brought to bear on this. It isn't something that can be summed up in fifty words or less.--Porthos 13:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
You could well be correct about there not being a simple definition (I'm not so convinced about "clear", however). But that is why I elaborated on my question with an example. Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, I find it quite unacceptable for you to come in to the middle of the debate and unilaterally make the decision to remove an artistic masterpiece. It's somewhat egomanical, and I feel like the issue should be resolved before you decide what to do. I will be returning to the Status Quo when the argument started - the picture included on the main page.
In response to your original question, Philip (simple and clear definition), according to Merrian-Webster, Art can be defined as "decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter"[2]. Likewise, pornography is "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement"[3]. Keep in mind that some people have fetishes - foot fetishes, hand fetishes, etc. - therefore, this image could arouse sexual excitement in a certain viewer. And I doubt that you would attempt to justify that picture of a foot as being pornographic. I propose that exposed breasts are at a greater risk of being considered pornographic by a wider audience, but sensible mature folk will definitely not see it as pornograpic - it's not realistic.
And Conservative, masterpieces are often defined by the level of fame they have acquired. Just because art has a positive theme does not mean it isn't a terrible and obscure piece of work. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 13:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
P.S. I am curious as to why this image was on the front page for some time, and nobody had a problem with it. Is an exposed male genitalia (The proper anatomical term for the male genitalia is censored by the "spam" filter) not as terrible as exposed breasts? --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 14:00, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Conflicting definitions are doing nothing to convince me! Elamdri posted a definition above about pornography "having a quality". Something having a particular quality is independent of the intentions of the creator. Yet the definition from Merrian-Webster bases the definition on the intention of the creator. If this is correct, then we can't say that nude paintings are not pornographic unless we know the intentions of the artist.
And to respond to a point that's not been explicitly said, I fail to see how "pornography" and "art" are mutually exclusive. So something fitting the definition of "art" does not necessarily mean that it is not also pornography.
Your P.S. was not directed at anybody in particular, I gather, but for my part, I've not taken much notice of what's been there. Instead, I was picking up on the conversation here.
Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Here's an interesting thought. I live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our state flag has an exposed breast on it. We are smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely one cannot consider Virginia's state banner pornographic?--Porthos 14:02, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, that really depends on the definition that we are discussing, doesn't it? Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean?--Porthos 09:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I mean that hypothetically maybe it is pornographic, depending on the definition of "pornographic", which is what we've been discussing. Philip J. Rayment 09:46, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Considering Conservateur is a parodist, I can't believe we're having this debate. The breasts are barely visible in the masterpiece. Also, the precedent is that Michelangelo's David is allowed. Why are we having this debate? It's over nothing! DanH 14:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm just kinda bored.--Elamdri 20:51, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't consider the issue "nothing". Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservative tried deleting the entire Masterpiece of the Week earlier today. Maybe it would be best if we simply put up next week's piece of artwork early. DanH 00:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

  • This is another much ado about nothing. Andy has previously posted his decision on these kinds of things. He approved of "David", as it is art! It is not any sysops place to remove or dictate policy that Andy has already spoken to. Let it go, people! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:17, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't prevent us discussing the definition of "pornography". Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
  • A wise old man, one of our Supreme Court Justices, once said: "I cannot give you a definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it." Since then, no one has improved on that. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
In other words, there is no clear definition, and it's a very subjective view. So if I call something pornography, others can have different opinions, but nobody can say categorically that I'm wrong. Therefore, nobody can say with any certainty that the painting that was on the Main Page is not pornography. Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, no. Andy said it wasn't. Therefore, it isn't. At least here at CP. Now in NSW, it might be. I ain't prepared to proffer a statement on that.  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:05, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, I guess the "at least here at CP" bit may be correct, but even then that only applies for individual pictures that Andy so declares, and doesn't help with the broader question. What has New South Wales got to do with anything? It's not as though I live there. Philip J. Rayment 03:27, 19 July 2007 (EDT)


I fail to see how Edwards comments, wrong as they may be, can even come close to suggesting that the Democrats rig the election. He said that we should narrow down the candidates.... How much circular reasoning and spin does it take to infer rigging out of that? SirJim 15:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
When I was stationed in Florida during the 2000 election the Democrats tried (and failed, fortunately), to throw out every overseas military ballot that came in. That's called rigging, SirJim. Karajou 21:08, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
No, rigging is the purge of so-called 'felons' from the voting rolls. The process is more dubious when one tosses in the fact that the demographic most affected by this 'clerical mishap' is one that votes overwhelmingly democratic (in the 85%+ range) while the demographic you're talking about, while admittedly conservative, doesn't share that severe degree of partisanship or size. See this: . "The company admits it made some mistakes. One list sent to Florida officials inaccurately contained 8,000 people who had committed misdemeanors -- not felonies -- in Texas. "
As for the thrown out military ballots, you don't understand what happened. Florida law is very specific about how absentee ballots from overseas have to be postmarked and filled out. An unidentified poll worker was caught illegally altering these ballots, filling in information to make them legal votes; it's because of this that the democrats attempted to ahve them declared invalid. They didn't move specifically against military ballots, which of course are exempt from some of those Florida statutes (for understandable reasons, the military has its own distinct set of rules). As far as I remember, the military votes were never excluded from the count. They were incorrectly hashed in to the argument by journals that didn't do enough journalism to understand what was going on. The democrats only challenged those ballots that were illegally altered by a poll worker.
Sorry if I come off as a democrat-apologist in this argument, but someone has to play the devil's advocate. Reality happened in a very distinct way in Florida in 2000, and it pains me that so many people don't understand the process, culminating in Bush vs. Gore, that allowed Mr. Bush to become President. It's one of the most important elections in American history, up there with the Revolution of 1800. Stryker 09:24, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Irony, anybody?

After reading the posts here I started laughing. I genuinely found it funny that there seem to be more liberal and openminded people here then what we would call American "conservatives." I checked what this wiki had to say on Conservativism as an ideology and political philosophy and it did not mention the so-called father of conservativism Edmund Burke, who rather eloquently put forward a view that stated that Man has a responsibility both to his past and his progeny and that the wide-eyed and idealistic Socialists and Communists of the Ninteeth Century in their support of violent and widespread revolution were being rash. True conservativsm in itself does not reject change or discriminate against people based on if they like boys or girls (or whatever, god knows people like some weird things), but rather states that man needs the framework of government to keep order and in pursuance of that belief it is unfair to flip the table over and start a new game of cards, becuase that new game can be quite violent (re: anarchy and not the peaceful kind). I find it APPALLING that no mention of Burke is on the Conservative page of Conservapedia and find it funny how narrowminded American "Conservativsm" has become. The bible is not a series of historical accuracies but rather a book contaning metaphorical stories that are supposed to teach a lesson. The message in the Creation Story is not that the world is 6000 years old, but rather that humans are flawed and our lives from birth are a struggle to overcome the evils the plague all of us, with an added realization that there is something greater than all of us. These are things that I think it is easy to see in life and the Creation Story is simply one metaphor out of the thousands for teaching this to us.

Please people, think. This being said I would like to hear what some other people have to say about the lack of actucal conservativsm on Conservapedia and the twisted wretch that conservativism has become in America.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

Just picking up on one point: What makes you think that the creation story is a metaphor? Jesus didn't think so. Philip J. Rayment 23:59, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I picked up a book about the conservative movement and looked in the index for (Irishman) Edmund Burke and did not fine a single reference to him. I rarely hear a conservative invoke his work in a speech or essay. Perhaps the neoconservatives like to cite him, but Burke has little enduring influence on conservativism in America.--Aschlafly 01:07, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservatives don't quote him saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."???  :-) Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ah, that is a great quote. I've quoted him myself for that!!! Thank God for Burke's insight there.--Aschlafly 01:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

This is sort of a ramble, but there's a positive message, here. There's no reason not to cover basics of historical conservativism on this project, so let's get busy! AManInBlack 15:14, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

What I was trying to say about the bible is that it was written in a time when scientific discoveries of the present day were not made, so fantastic explinations were dreamed up by humans for various things. We see this in every ancient culture from the Greeks to the Hebrews, and as we as a species come to understand the world around us these stories no longer have literal meaning but often retain their moral value. Jesus lived 2000 years ago with the knowledge that was avaliable to him at the time and by all accounts he was an ordinary man who attempted to reform Judaeism and who's legacy was heavily embellished starting about fifty years after his death by followers that had never met him (we call those writings our Gospels). As we discover that Jesus was not a mythological godlike figure but rather a man with a great grasp on human nature, perhaps religion will be weakened but the power of his parables as pertain to our lives will not be.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

"fantastic explinations were dreamed up by humans for various things": That is your belief, based on your worldview that rejects the Bible as authoritative. So you (a) reject the Bible as authoritative, then (b) explain Biblical explanations as "dreamed up", then (c) use that to argue that the Bible is wrong. Sorry, but that's a circular argument.
"as we as a species come to understand the world around us these stories no longer have literal meaning": Something can't have a literal meaning one day and not have it the next day. If they once had a literal meaning, they still do, whether they are correct or not.
"Jesus lived 2000 years ago with the knowledge that was avaliable to him at the time ...": Only true if you first of all assume that Jesus was not the all-knowing God, and the Creator of the world. Again, you are begging the question.
" all accounts he was an ordinary man...": Blatantly, obviously, clearly, wrong! You might believe that He was an ordinary man, and you might be able to find other accounts claiming that He was an ordinary man, but it is simply not true to claim that He was an ordinary man "by all accounts" when the main account in question—the Bible—specifically says otherwise!
"...who's legacy was heavily embellished starting about fifty years after his death by followers that had never met him ...": And the evidence for this is...?
"we call those writings our Gospels": Three of those Gospels were written by his disciples, i.e. they knew him personally. The critics (such as you and whomever you got this nonsense from), however, lived around 2000 years after his death. Hmmm.
"As we discover that Jesus was not a mythological godlike figure...": Hooray! You finally said something that I agree with! True, He was not mythological! Nor "godlike"—He was not like God, he is God.
"... but rather a man with a great grasp on human nature, perhaps religion will be weakened but the power of his parables as pertain to our lives will not be.": So if much of what He said and of what is said about Him in the Bible is wrong, why should we take any notice of His parables? No, this is a typical argument pretending to respect the structure of Christianity whilst undermining its foundations. Yet it is so obvious, I wonder why you bother.
Philip J. Rayment 01:22, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah this is genuinely good. A discussion =]. Obviously we have some pretty disparate viewpoints but that is what makes the world go round. Let's see if I can sufficently answer these back with brevity -

1) What I was saying was that every ancient civilization, without scientific knowledge we have today, designated many things to the authorty of a god or many gods. It varies by culture, the Greeks had many while the Hebrews had one, the Navajo thought their gods resided within creation. As science progressed we learn that there is a natural reason for everything and learn that god or gods do not give the rain, but rather water gathers in the atmosphere naturally. These types of things (God's wrath/bounty being attributed to natural occurances) occur in the Bible.

2) Things CAN have a literal meaning one day and metaphorical the next. The creation story is a great example I think: the earth (and certainly the universe) is certainly more than 6000 years old, but the story does not lose its value as pertains to human nature.

3-8) The next few are grouped together: The Gospels as we know them today were written roughly between 70 ad and 100 ad depending on who's view you trust. I've seen views as early as 50-60 ad and as late as the 130s (hooray Catholic school) but I decided to take the middle ground. If Jesus was born in 4 or 7 bc, that puts his death in the mid twenties and the authorships of the Gospels between thirty and a hundered years after the death of Jesus, with the general estimate being somewhere between 40 and 60 years depending on which Gospel we're talking about. The Gospel's were not written by direct followers of Jesus but rather by followers of the Apostles. Along with these four toe-the-line gospels a myrad of others exist, some written later and some written around the same time as the others, which contrast the view of Jesus offered by the four Cannonical gospels. Paul, who had never met Jesus and instead was converted by what he calls divine revalation started the spread of these miraculous stories and they kind of grew and grew, or at least that is the best of what I have been able to gather. Much of the writings from the actucal time Jesus lived stressed his brother John (not the baptist) more than he, and I have heard various things saying it was John and not Jesus who was the more important of the two. At the very least with this myriad of various information pointing to Jesus being a variety of differnet people and even a savior in different senses, I find it hard that in 323 a bunch of politically-minded bishops miraculously chose the four right gospels out of dozens. It seems simply from the point of logic that these men were solidifying a religion and needed to reach an accord and so bartered and reached what we now call Christianity. Just like modern day politics.

9) When I have read the bible in the past, I have been skeptical of the theology but have found meaning in various parables. Just as books I have read by the Dali Lama have meaning even if I do not believe the theological aspects of the religion, the parables of Jesus can have meaning if I do not believe he is God. I was not prevaricating when I said this, I think many of the parables are beautiful and I try and incorporate some of their wisdom into my life, although it is certainly hard.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

To create paragraph breaks, leave blank lines in the text. I've fixed your last post up for you.
1) What you are basically saying is that the Biblical account is wrong (in ascribing things to God) because we know better today. But my point is that this is merely your opinion, not something that you have demonstrated. You also misrepresent what the Bible teaches, because it doesn't ascribe rain, for example, to individual acts of God each time. What it does do is ascribe the origin of everything to God, i.e. it effectively claims that God created the laws of nature by which rain is produced, not that He separately creates rain on each occasion that it rains. Through science, we have discovered how rain is produced according to these laws of nature—that is, we have discovered the system God set up to produce rain—but science has not shown us how these laws originated. In addition, the Bible does record that on occasions God intervenes and causes certain things to happen, such as rain, but these are clearly exceptions to the rule, not the rule. Finally, what you have not done is refute that the Bible is what it claims to be—the direct and accurate revelation of the Creator. Instead, all you have done is offer an explanation of how the Bible came to say what it says if your non-Christian worldview is true. That is, your explanation is based on your presumed worldview; it is not based on evidence, logical argument, or reason.
2) Restating your claim that something can be literal one day and not literal the next does not make it so. You have offered no evidence nor logic for this claim.
3-8) I think your dates are a bit out (Jesus died around A.D. 30 or 33 I think, and the Gospels were written earlier rather than later). The author of Matthew was Jesus' disciple Matthew, and the author of John was Jesus' disciple John, so those two were written by His direct followers. I was in error in claiming that three were. Mark was written by a friend of Peter, and Luke was written by a friend of Paul. For more on authorship, see here.
The "other" gospels are not part of the Bible, so any disagreement they have with the biblical books is irrelevant.
I don't know where you get the idea that Paul "started the spread of these miraculous stories", and I doubt that you can offer any evidence that "they kind of grew and grew". On the contrary, the evidence is that the books were preserved accurately.
How could Jesus' brother John be more important than the Creator (Jesus) Himself???
"I have heard various things ...". Perhaps that's the problem: you appear to listen to too many crackpots and bibliosceptics who haven't a clue what they are talking about.
"I find it hard [to believe?] that in 323 a bunch of politically-minded bishops miraculously chose the four right gospels out of dozens.". Then don't believe it, because it isn't true. The canonical books had already been accepted as such long before that. But as with you now, there were sceptics then that questioned whether they were really the only true gospels, so the church simply formalised what was already generally accepted.
9) Parables can be nice, and they can help us understand things, but they can't be used as any sort of teaching if they come from an unreliable source.
Philip J. Rayment 07:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

If my world is baised by a non-Christian worldview (keeping in mind I used to be very, very Christian and have been down that road) then yours is certainly biased pro-Christian. You say that on occasion God takes it upon himself to intervene when this is something I, nor anybody I know, has experienced. I cannot directly refute these claims but I cannot accept them based on stories that have been re-re-retranslated and authored by people who's aim was to convey a message rather than record historcal accuracy. I have trouble beliving in a God who would divinely intervene to help the Hebrews slaughter their enemies yet who will not stop the violence in Darfur. Certainly if God had the power to intervene at one time he has not lost that power, and it would certainly be noble to be lent a hand here. I am not saying that the universe is godless (with no originating force nothing would be), but rather I no longer beleive in a fickle God who doles out punishments and selfishly picks the battles he fights while ignoring most of the plight of humanity. I know by people who are religious I will be told that we cannot look to God to solve our own problems but this is an argument that no longer stands; if God at one time was content intervening and leading the Hebrews out of their slavery why cannot he lead all those imprisoned out of their bondage? Is he silently saying that one man is worth more than another? That is a God I cannot believe in.

I think I did give an example of literal to metaphorical: the creation story. At one time it was widely believed as literal but as that view becomes less widespread the story still conveys the imperfection of humanity. The Cain and Abel story, while perhaps not true (as humanity could not genetically have started from just two people) becomes a metaphor for human agression, jealousy and redemption. Stories can and should have meaning beyond their literal texts.

My dates are not wrong. Look them up. The gospels (ceratinly the synoptics) were not written by the men who's name they bear. John is under dispute but it is more accepted that it was not written by the apostle. While it is true the other gospels are not part of the bible, it does not diminish their validity. Try reading Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Bishop Spong. He outlines very nicely how the Christian tradition grew and this is not some crazy off his rocker atheist, this is a man who genuinely believes in God but that a theistic god is leftover from a past when humanity was not okay with its own aloneness. The canon had not been accepted, even the authors of the gospels place Jesus' divinity in different places. Only when John came along as the last gospel was Jesus truly a god. Paul understood that Jesus' divnity was put in place by the ressurrection, the synoptics place it at his birth and John pre-birth, creating Jesus as an ever-existing figure.

And please, my friend, parables are beautiful no matter what you believe. Ghandi, though he did not beleive in Jesus as lord, thought he had a deep understanding of humanity. I think the same. I see no reason that I cannot appreciate his teachings.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

I wish I had the time to address everything in your entry above. I also wish you'd work on your spelling more. Everything about life, and faith, requires initiative. Let's start with improving our spelling, OK?
God is not likely to spend all his time fixing every single injustice in this world. He is like a parent who puts a child in a playpen with other children. If a child cries out loud enough for help, then the parent will intervene. If the child is quiet while being beaten on by another child, the parent may not notice. Same with the world. If we're not crying out for intervention by God in whom we have faith and trust, then it's illogical to expect Him to intervene. Moreover, like a parent, God may hear the cries and still not intervene.--Aschlafly 17:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Heh spelling. Sorry I'm not going over these with spellcheck I wish my browser had it =x. I just dont see though how an all loving god could neglect genocide, injustice, rape, muder, theft, exploitation on such grand scales. It is what originally drove me away from a theistic Christian view of God. It seems if God is all loving then an plea in-earnest by anybody would be heard. If God is all powerful it seems to me that the power of this help would have no bounds. These are not my own dreamings but things stated ad nauseam by chruches, both Catholic and Protestant, and if God indeed has such power is omnipresent that it stands to reason that such a God would intervene where true injustice was occuring. That said, it has been a good debate/discussion type thing.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

"For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgement may come upon the wicked" Alma 60:13 --Crocoite 00:32, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Rollon067, Due to the lengths of the messages, I'm going to continue this discussion on your talk page. Okay? But as far as spelling checkers are concerned, see here. Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Russian royal family "executed"

This use of the term 'executed' is becoming all too common in the media (terrorist threats to 'execute' hostages, etc. etc). I thought execution was the imposition of the death penalty after at least some form of due process by a state-sanctioned authority (leaving aside the question of whether the death penalty itself is justifiable, or is just or unjust in particular cases). To use the term 'executed' as a synonym for 'murdered' muddies the language, and conveys some sort of justification or authorisation for the murderers. The Tsar's family was murdered; Ken Bigley was murdered; all the victims of terrorism over the past years were murdered. Not executed, murdered. Pachyderm 05:20, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Valid point! Not suicide bombers, but Homicide Bombers. The details count. Done. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:51, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, TK. Pachyderm 05:58, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

As they were killed by order of Lenin, execute is the correct term. Your definition of "execute" is flawed. Execute means "to kill in a planned fashion", not necessarily to kill following a trial. Murder implies some form of randomness, execute implies the cold blooded and deliberate nature of the killing. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:23, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Regardless, please put your petty upset with me aside, and don't be taking it out on editors, okay? I believe most people, would say they were murdered, which implies more prejudice than execute. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I think I agree with Fox on "executed" (the news sometimes talks about an "execution-style killing"), but not so readily on "murdered". That is, perhaps he is correct in saying that it implies some form or randomness, but I would define "murder" as killing of someone innocent, random or otherwise. Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, being since they were indeed murdered by a revolutionary, non-elected "government", and the order to "execute" issued by a genocidal murderer in secret, and the killers dispatched to do the deed with orders to obliterate all signs of the murder, and the corpses hacked and disfigured and buried secretly in the woods, sprinkled with Lye, maybe some can be excused for stubbornly calling it murder....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't disagreeing with "murdered", although I think that "executed" was also okay. Philip J. Rayment 06:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
The fact that Lenin ordered the killing does not necessarily make it a 'lawful' act even by the standards of 1918 Bolshevism. Presumably even the Russian/Soviet criminal code at that time did not authorise the state killing of children (irrespective of what actually went on). The Oxford English Dictionary has two relevant definitions of the verb 'to execute': 6. To inflict capital punishment upon; to put to death in pursuance of a sentence. More fully, to execute to death. and b. Hence for: To put to death, kill. rare. Sadly, the second usage is becoming less rare, and to use 'execute' with all its implications of judicial sanction for terroristic murders - whether by AQ thugs or the claimed authority of a Lenin or a Hitler - is abhorrent. There was no trial of the Tsar and no judicail sentence, and no cause for trial of his children. This was murder. Pachyderm 14:45, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Please go buy a dictionary and look up "execution". Besides which, it was changed to "murder"; get over it. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:20, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

The tab that opens this page reads 'discussion'. Isn't that what this page is for - discussion and (I had hoped) engagement? As for dictionaries, is the OED not good enough for you? Pachyderm 16:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Chastity Ring in UK Court

I thought you all might be interested in this article: . I'm kind of conflicted about it myself. Apparently, the school has a no-jewelry rule in place, and the Court decided that the chastity ring was not integral to a student's faith, unlike a Cross or magein David, and thus was subject to the jewelry ban. Your opinions? Stryker 12:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I think I may have inadvertently opened a can of worms with this one. Sorry. Stryker 13:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Not at all. Andy pointed out to me he put the article on the Main Page. It was totally my mistake, being ignorant of the modern day practice. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:17, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so, any opinions? Personally, I don't think it's a liberal vs conservative issue (I haven't had a chance to consult my friends on each side yet though); it doesn't really even seem to be too religious in nature. I think it really boils down to this school had a strict dress code which included a ban on jewelry. The article mentions that objects of religious significance must be exempt from these dress codes (as already mentioned, crosses and the like, but I'd imagine burkas and other traditional garbs would be exempt as well), so then the issue transitions to whether or not the ring is of religious significance. I'm not Christian (I'm Jewish), so I don't know how that argument would work. I've gotta say, after fleshing out the facts, I think that the no-jewelry rule is the culprit here. How in the world is that useful? I went to a high school that didn't enforce any uniforms, just a slight dress code (no hats, no exposed underwear, girls couldn't wear short-shorts), so the idea of such a strict policy boggles my mind. Stryker 13:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
The Brits are plainly being liberal and anti-Christian here. Let's face it: liberals hate abstinence, and they particularly hate teaching abstinence to teenagers. That's what this issue is about.--Aschlafly 14:01, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Accusing those Brits of liberalism isn't the answer this time, Andy. I know you use it a panacea to all things you don't fully understand. A British school with such a strict dress code is likely to be more traditional and conservative than liberal. User:Order 24 July.
  • I wonder if they contracted with the Boulder, Colorado Board of Education, for ideas? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:22, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Just wondering if it isn't also conservative to enforce existing rules, and liberal to play fast and loose with them? An argument could be made that they were acting conservatively, rather than being "liberal." Do we know that they banned it simply to be anti-abstinence, or were they simply being consistent in their application of an established rule?--[Fred] 17 July 2007

Please explain how you came the conclusion that Liberals are against Abstinence? I know I don't speak for all liberals, but I have no problem with it, I just accept that it doesn't always work. As for the case itself, I don't personally see a problem with this student wearing her ring, but if the school has a no jewelry policy and enforces it... then they did the right thing. SirJim 20:45, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
SirJim, how can you say that abstinence does not work? Let's be clear on what we mean by work in this context. One judges the theoretical effectiveness of a method by how it performs when one applies it without fail. Explain, then, how a woman can possibly fall pregnant if she is unfailingly abstinent? (Jesus Christ was, of course, an Extra Special Case.)
And may I remind you that when a woman cheats at abstinence, then she is not abstinent anymore.
Abstinence is an attitude, not merely a practice. It says not only that a woman will reserve herself for marriage, but that she is perfectly content so to act and considers that she will gain nothing by "cheating."--TerryHTalk 21:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Notice this part:
They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.
They make allowances - so it's not a total ban on jewelry (crucifixes are allowed); unfortunately the chastity rings don't qualify. Another reason for homeschooling. --Crocoite 21:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
My apologies, I didn't explain myself very well. Quite simply, study after study has shown that abstinence only policies don't work and are riddled with incorrect and misleading information that can be really dangerous for teenagers. On top of that, how can an argument posibly be made that Chasity Rings are an intregal part of the Christian Faith.... I mean, these rings are rather new... Conservatives always complain about liberals turning to the courts to change established policies, but the opposite is true in this case. How many "liberals" were upset that they couldn't wear their personal jewelry, yet it was religious conservatives that filed the lawsuit. Finally, an argument for homeschooling is that kids can wear whatever jewelry they want? That doesn't sound very logical. SirJim 22:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Here is typical Liberal Deceit. SirJim, your contributions here are Nil. All talk, no action. Chastity devices are centuries old. We welcome you here, and I urge you to contribute articles of substance! God Bless! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:12, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

For Staters, I fail to see how I was being deceitful in any way... AS for Chastity devices being centuries old, I fail to find one credible source that states that they were wearing abstinence rings in the middle ages, if you have one, I would be glad to see it.... As for my contributions, it's hard to make contributions when every other page is locked. Sorry if this seems a little defensive, but I fail to see what I have done to deserve such an unprovoked personal attack SirJim 23:40, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

SirJim, you have made 20 edits on this site, and all have been talk rather than advancing the encyclopedia. You remain here on borrowed time, I'm afraid. Not much time left for you to improve one of the nearly 15,000 unlocked entries.
Abstinence does work, and of course proper abstinence education helps. It defies logic to claim otherwise. Liberal distortions of science don't fool anyone here, particular when they defy logic.--Aschlafly 23:57, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, A, your threats don't scare me, block me.... prove I'm right. B, you still haven't given ONE example of my so called deceit, as to Aschlafly, as I said in my last post, I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear, Abstinence in practice works of course, but the classes taught in public schools only serve to mislead students into unsafe practices with faulty information. When I stated that Abstinence doesn't work, I meant to say that Abstinence only Education doesn't work. SirJim 01:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

  • SirJim, I am not going to become less than family friendly here, but I think you can use your imagination and think of several ways chastity devices and procedures have been used through the ages, eh? I am sorry you took my friendly remarks and wish that God bless you as an attack. Here such phrases are ones of Christian brotherhood. Perhaps you are used to places that don't see it like that. Godspeed to you! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:32, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
To Begin, I am perfectly aware of the exsitence of chastity belts (in fact, you can still buy them today online) but my point was not that chasity devices didn't exsist, but that Chastity rings are a new aspect of abstinence, and nowhere near an important part of the Christian faith. as for your second part, I did not consider God Bless to be a personal attack.. but I think most people would accept "Here is typical Liberal Deceit. SirJim, your contributions here are Nil. All talk, no action," and "you have made 20 edits on this site, and all have been talk rather than advancing the encyclopedia. You remain here on borrowed time, I'm afraid." to be personal attacks.... Not to mention leaving veiled threats on my personal user page. SirJim 02:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
The part about your contributions shouldn't be taken as personal attacks. They are not meant to be. There is a rule, commandment 7, and the warnings are meant to help you stay clear of any infraction. Consider it helpful. I am sure no one is personally attacking you. Bohdan 02:10, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Absolutely a perfect read, Bohdan! SirJim, here at Conservapedia we value plain speaking over political correctness. I know that in the world of many, that is really mind blowing. Yelling attack, veiled threats, will not impress anyone here. All it will get you is blocked, because you have contributed nothing. Show us what you can do, make some contributions, and the latitude you get will increase. There are many ways to contribute here! Some make articles, some edit them, some format, and many add facts. Instead of arguing a meaningless POV (for here) why not make lemonade out of what you see as lemons? As Andy told you, borrowed time is what people have coming here. If they contribute the time is extended. We do not believe in any "right" to sit on the sidelines and constantly complain. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:43, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to continue asking for proof, but please give me one example of politically correct speech I've used... On top of that, if threats get you nowhere, why did you leave me a message reading simply "The bell tolling, can you hear it?" SirJim 03:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • All of your language is that of a globalist/PC/secularist. Goodness! Time really is running out on you! Your drama and cries of threats, etc., are a real bore. Have you thought of trying Wikipedia, where mobocracy and bullying by squashing plain talk rule? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
again, "all of your language" is not a good example, it's a little broad... please, give me some examples of anything I've done or said that has is politically correct? SirJim 18:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

This decision has little to do with abstinence -- it needs to be read in light of other cases, such as that of Shabina Begum[4], concerning the Human Rights Act and school uniform policies. In Britain it is conservatives who are standing up for traditional values by supporting schools in establishing effective discipline. It is liberals who are encouraging people to constantly challenge traditional institutions in the name of multiculturalism. This is a victory for common sense and a defeat for the political correctness brigade. --Jalapeno 03:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


We generally have a good deal more items on the right of the main page; what do people think about moving Today in History from its current position to the invariably empty left hand lower column? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:43, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't see a problem with that. Philip J. Rayment 06:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I told Justine to go ahead with a redesign, after getting Andy's approval, so perhaps we can hold off until I check with her? Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:11, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
    • In my opinion, the right side Breaking News looks great in its current state. However, feel free to test or modify my changes. Niandra talk 10:39, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the changes Niandra. I like the current format. --Crocoite 10:54, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Bible Verse

I am wondering why the Daily Bible Verse seems to always be quoted fron the Authorised Version rather than say, the NIV? The NIV is probably the most accepted version by evangelicals in the English speaking world. Or why aren't a variety of versions used which have general acceptance amongst conservative evangelicals? AndrewDavid 10:34, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent point. The NIV should be used far more often. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:22, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

It is usually the American Standard Version, actually, not the Authorized Version; and don't forget that the NIV has a larger paraphrase rate and when it was written, the translators

  • altered some sentences to be made vague when the original Hebrew is specific
  • introduced whole new senses of some words, not present in the original Hebrew
  • ignored previously known errors in translation to safeguard certain theological doctrines
  • added some words not found anywhere in the original documents

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Not wanting to start a debate on the NIV—er, it's just started actually—but I don't accept those criticisms to be fair. I'm not suggesting that the NIV doesn't have faults, but what translation doesn't? Philip J. Rayment 10:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
[5], [6] File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:48, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
The first of those links bases its analysis of the NIV on how it compares to the AV, not how it compares to the original languages. This is fallacious reasoning, so that site is not worth the electrons it is written on. The second is not so much a criticism of the NIV as a criticism of the Greek text that most modern translations—including the ASV—are based on, and which also says next to nothing about the NIV Old Testament. Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not defending the ASV, merely pointing out that the NIV isn't the font of inerrancy that it is claimed to be. Personally, I use HOT and the Complete Jewish Bible, and will happily contribute from those :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:10, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
  • While I would avoid using "seems to always", this isn't a Bible wiki, nor is it an Evangelical wiki either, but an Encyclopedia that is Conservative and Christian friendly. If you feel there are not enough quotations taken from the NIV, I am certain those who are supplying the quotes will now have seen your post and will make an even greater effort to include NIV quotes more often, as Andy noted. Thanks for pointing this out. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 11:00, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

On a related suggestion, it might be nice to link the verse reference to (like Gospel of Mark, 8:38 (NIV)) so that people can check other versions if they wish. It seems like it would be a trivial matter to do this, and I know I would appreciate it as I enjoy comparing different translations. Jinkas 11:12, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

We already do that. Check out the templates Template:Bible ref and Template:Bible quote.--TerryHTalk 11:25, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, excellent! Those are good templates. I just noticed that the current Daily Bible Verse wasn't linked, so I thought I would mention it. Jinkas 11:43, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
eh, arguing over which version of the bible to use seems like a big waste of time to me.--Elamdri 16:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
In my opinion, arguing over the pros and cons of modern versions is a waste of time. But nobody here would suggest putting the daily verse up in French, Finnish, or Filipino, because it should be in a language that Conservapedia's readers understand. And who, apart from Christians raised on it (which includes me, by the way), understands 17th-century English? I've nothing against the AV as far as accuracy goes (which is not to suggest that it has no problems), but simply oppose it's use (now that another editor has raised the matter) on the grounds of language. I don't particularly care which modern version is used, so long as it is a version that the average English-speaker understands. The AV (US: KJV) doesn't qualify. (I have a small problem in principle with the NASB because it retains 17th-century English for pronouns used of God, but I'm not going to argue over that point.) Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Many interesting comments here, and I agree more can be made out of translation differences than is warranted. That said, I always learn something when discussing different translations, and I welcome the debate. I credit the NIV for saying in a footnote that the adulteress story beginning with John 8:1 is not in the original version. The American Standard Version, published around 1901, fails to say that (maybe they didn't know). Fox's criticisms above of the NIV version are intriguing. I like translation issues. They remind us of what a philosopher once observed, that perfect translation is impossible. In Christ, Aschlafly 21:48, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Nobody mentioned copyright issues. Many of the modern versions are restrictive as to the number of quotes you are allowed to publish, licensing fees, etc., and this should be taken into consideration (cf. the NIV fair use guidelines [7]). One notable exception to this rule is the NET Bible, which has a "ministry-first" copyright policy [8] that is less restrictive than that of other modern translations. This version has recently become a particular favorite of mine because it is loaded with extensive footnotes discussing the considerations that the translators had reckon with in making the translation (e.g. that many of the early manuscripts lack the John 8 passage [9]) which other versions simply gloss over.
Conservatives make use many different versions of the Scriptures that run the gamut from formal equivalence (e.g. NASB) to dynamic equivalence (NIV) to paraphrase (J.B. Phillips or "the Message"), so I don't see why any one particular translation should be granted monopoly status on the site. --Rexislexis 23:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I didn't mention copyright issues because the are not an issue! The copyright provisions of the NIV and one or two other versions that I've looked at are quite generous. Quoting single verses on the Main Page would not even come close to being a copyright issue. You could quote several chapters (of some books at least) and still be well within the copyright limitations! The one thing that, from memory, you would need to keep in mind, however, is that I think they do require you to mention that it is from the NIV (or whatever). Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree with you in that I think we're probably ok with limited use of NIV. But I think the key word here is limited. The NIV copyright allows for up to 500 verses to be quoted in a electronic work [10]. It appears that a key issue here is how Zondervan defines "work". Does it mean the whole site, or the page? If it's the page, then we're probably fine (as long as it's not a "commentary"). But if the whole site is being referred to, then we might have an issue if over time we quote more than 500 verses from the NIV on Conservapedia. Maybe. ( is one case in point of a site that was having difficulty obtaining the necessary permissions for using the Scripture on its site.) [11]
Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Let's hope so. The main point I was trying to make was that I don't believe we should force a consensus on Bible versions for the site, given that Conservatives themselves use a wide range of Bible translations. --Rexislexis 09:15, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
  • No worries there, Rexislexis! We don't allow mob rule here! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:10, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Tribunal hit for Wikipedia ruling - some info

I've had a look at the tribunal story, and it looks like the information came not from Wikipedia, but from,, a wiki that seems to have no formal connection with Wikipedia itself (see their about page [12]). It does seem to use some content from Wikipedia, but it isn't, as the article claims, "a Wikipedia website". Out of interest, it seems 180 pages on the site use content from Wikipedia (see this search: [13]), out of 4,237 (see the statistics page [14]), or about 4%. Bronzefinger 12:08, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure how Wikipedia loses credibility on that story anyway. Any organization using any wiki as an authortiative source is out of line, in my opinion. --Colest 12:19, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely true. No one should use any wiki as a definitive source for anything. Saying so is hardly an attack on Wikipedia. Are we under any illusions that this site would fare better? PortlyMort 16:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Also, how is Conservapedia's policy on experts different from Wikipedia's? I know there are claims about respecting experts on subjects, but how are these "experts" identified and verified? It's almost all anonymous editing here too. Even when people give real names, how are they verified? how are their credentials established? PortlyMort 16:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia values learning and education, and we've attracted many editors with advanced degrees. It's not all anonymous here, as you'll see that several of our leaders use their last names and others have become known to us over time. We don't allow the anti-intellectual culture that is pervasive at Wikipedia, as reflected by the user names and comments there.--Aschlafly 21:25, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not so sure that the differences between the two encyclopedias is as great as it is made out to be, in this sense. Wikipedia had also attracted many editors with advanced degrees (many more than Conservaedia has, I'm sure, which is hardly impressive as it's many times larger). It also has many anonymous editors. And so does Conservapedia. Wikipedia does value experts, but it values verifiable sources more highly. Someone doesn't need to be an expert on a subject if they can point to a reliable source that backs up what they say. Likewse an expert on something who can't back up what he says with sources is doing original research. He may even be right, but Wikipedia does not allow original research.
If Conservapedia hasn't experienced some problems as Wikipedia has it's only because the site is so much younger and smaller. In order for this to consider itself an encyclopedia it needs to have a lot more articles and much more information on them. (I mean, look at the article Oh, God! and the lack of an article at all for David Copperfield -- and it is the book, not the magician I'm alluding to.) Many articles here are also a sentence fragment giving the definition of a term inadequate for even the most basic of dictionaries. To reach the broadness of even a basic encyclopedia there need to be a lot more editors making a lot more edits. And, as that happens you will have to spend more and more time dealing with problematic user names and anti-intellectual comments. You'll find it's very difficult to police, and of course there will be controversial deletions of articles deemed "anti-intellectual", usernames blocked for being silly, and comments erased. If you're going to delete every aricle on a video game or cartoon show you're going to need some sort of deletion policy that allows various editors to weigh in, unless you plan on attending to all this yourself (which would be beyond the capability of any man). You're going to find you have to start adopting policies that begin to resemble some of Wikipedia's. The main point is that you can't be an open sourced wiki and still maintain complete control of what's on the site. Not if you want to site to be as big as it really needs to be. Wikipedia's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: its size and openness. It is simply too big and has too many users to possibly maintain quality control over the entire project. Conservapedia may someday be too. PortlyMort 08:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
For example, here's an article that doesn't exactly have "intellectual" written all over it. Looks like something I'd expect to find on Wikipedia (an abbreviated version thereof, anyway). Is it the exception? Will it be deleted? What about other video game articles that will follow (and they will)? PortlyMort 09:08, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Is this an example of the intellectual culture here? Nice to find a wiki devoid of the anti-intellectual culture that is pervasive at Wikipedia. JackDaniels 10:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

You're going to be blocked for your inappropriate user name. Pick another name and make serious edits, or please go elsewhere. That should be example enough for you.--Aschlafly 10:44, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Poor chap. What's inappropriate about his name? Yours isn't any better. I would like more examples please. JohnnyWalker 11:00, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

What happens in the unlikely event that his real name is Jack Daniels? Anyway, the originator of this topic seems quite correct, the website in question is not a wikipedia site. It is a wiki, and it is (allegedly) an encyclopedia, but that same is true of Conservapedia, and that does not mean it's a wikipedia site. The website in question is here: [15], while the Armenian language wikipedia I think is this site: [16] (it appears my browser does not support Armenian characters so I'm getting gibberish, but maybe someone else will have better luck). In the name of accuracy it seems that entry should be removed from the loss of credibility reference on the main page. PortlyMort 11:08, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Two new editors register in the space of less than half an hour, both with names matching whiskeys, and you think they might be their real names? Come on, even I'm not that gullible (no offence). Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, I was basically kidding with that (and Aschlafly told Jack he was being banned before Johnny appeared, so I don't see how he could have made the comparison you rightly made), but it does bring up the point that some usernames that may seem jokes could be actual names. I've known Michael Jackson, Alexander Hamilton and Captain Kirk (well, Kirk was his first name in that case, but he did call him that). A name along the lines of Jack Daniels is not out of the question, and one should consider if it necessarily deserves a ban. But, anyway, the other points I made above have not been addressed at all. People seem to be responding to the superfluous comments and ignoring the serious issues. PortlyMort 11:26, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
PortlyMort, you hurt your credibility with your "superfluous comments" that you now claim were made in jest. It's difficult to feel compelled to wade through your other comments now. But go ahead and please summarize, clearly and succinctly, the point you're trying to make. I don't get your message yet.--Aschlafly 11:34, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay to sum up: 1) Any response to the seemingly quite correct point that Bronzefinger made above that the site in question is not Wikipedia even though the main page (and, yes, the article referenced) say it is?
2) How does Conservapedia plan to maintain the "we don't allow anti-intellectual articles, usernames, etc." policy as the site grows? What is the deletion policy when such things are added? Who decides what's "anti-intellectual"?
3) If Conservapedia claims to give the contributions of experts more weight, then how does it determine who an expert is? There is clearly no vetting policy for contributors; surely someone must do more than claim to be an "expert".
4) My "superfluous" comment merely meant to address the point that JackDaniels (who some might consider a troll) gets responded to, but honest questions made by me and Bronzefinger are ignored. PortlyMort 11:45, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
PortlyMort, you are correct that Andy made the comment about the JackDaniels username prior to JohnnyWalker registering, although my reply was based on you making your comment afterwards. And yes, it is a problem knowing if a name is genuine, but unfortunately we've already had people trying to register as, for example, Ann Coulter. If someone who registers with such a name really does have that name, they are welcome to provide evidence, but we Administrators know from experience that a name such as these is very likely to be bogus.
As for handling such things as we grow, part of the answer is that as of about nine hours ago (and prior to those two registrations), the login page has warned people registering about using frivolous names. Of course that wording is version 1, so there's always the possibility of improvements to it. I know that doesn't answer all your points, but it's a start.
Philip J. Rayment 12:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm wishing now I had never made the only semi-serious comment about JackDaniels, as it seems to be the primary focus now, at the expense of more serious issues. The issue of the error on the main page is not addressed, nor are most of the others. As to the point you did address, I hardly think a warning about not using frivolous names is going to prevent it from happening. For years Wikipedia has had warnings about not submitting material under copyright, vandalism, unverifiable content, etc. but guess what? People still do it every day. And are there any guidelines for what is "frivolous" or does every sysop get to decide for himself? "PortlyMort" may be considered frivolous. I suppose it sort of is. Am I going to be banned? I'm curious to see how Conservapedia plans to tackle the inherent problems that come with being a wiki in a way that is different from Wikipedia's methods. PortlyMort 12:51, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for my part in turning the focus to the side issue, but my intention was simply to address the area that I felt best able to address and leave other areas for others to answer. Warnings about frivolous user name should dissuade any genuine editor from using such. Vandals and other only here to cause trouble will still choose such names, but that will help show us who is not genuine, and avoid upsetting genuine editors who might have otherwise chosen a frivolous name. We are not about to ban existing editors with frivolous names solely on the basis of their name, so if that is your only "mistake", then you have nothing to worry about. What is considered frivolous will, in my opinion, have to remain somewhat subjective, as I don't think it's feasible to come up with a precise list and expect every sysop to remember it and interpret it identically. Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I just was going to take you up on that, Portly, but I see Ed Poor gave you a day off. Perhaps tomorrow I will still feel your not here to contribute, and you can then get another name. But bear in mind, a Rose by any other name is still a Rose, and I will find you, sooner or later! :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:20, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

The original point was that the Refugee Review Tribunal relied on Wikipedia to reject a protection visa. The linked source then informs us the information used came from, albeit described as a Wikipedia website. What they of course meant was a website using wiki software, the same software used by Conservapedia - a Wikipedia website? That point hasn't been addressed and the apparent discreditation of Wikipedia remains on the main page. Further more it was queried how the "experts" with advanced degrees are identified and verified? This wasn't answered either. It would be interesting to know who (User names) these experts are and what advanced degrees they have and what institutions awarded them. Instead of answering these valid points a smoke screen about frivolous names based on Whiskeys is created. PortlyMort you are not likely to receive answers to such queries, if you did it would mean the trustworthy encyclopedia isn't particularly trustworthy after all (see here), consequently the truth that shall set you free may not be found here after all. JimBeam 09:58, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

To your first point, the linked source does refer to the site as a Wikipedia website. Why you say "of course" that means something else is unclear. I assume they meant what they said. But, in deference to your research on this, I've removed that point, which was the least important of the three points anyway. You say nothing about the first point at all.
Here at Conservapedia we have many contributors who have one or more of the following advanced degrees: JDs, MDs and PhDs. Perhaps even more importantly, we value learning here and we eradicate anti-intellectualism.
Asking how that is done is a bit like asking MIT how it respects learning. It's a combination of rules, culture, participation, original work, etc. I'll give you one example before I move onto more intellectual work myself. We ban gossip here. Wikipedia welcomes it. Not satisfied? Here's another example: we ban obscenity here. Wikipedia does not. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Glad to see it was removed. If someone is intent on being critical of Wikipedia there are enough legitimate examples that one needn't rely on bogus ones. However, my inquiries about how the policies here differ from Wikipedia's, and, more importantly how those policies make a difference, is still largely unanswered. You say many editors have advanced degrees, and I don't doubt that. But the same is certainly true of Wikipedia. You also claim that "we value learning here and we eradicate anti-intellectualism." Fair enough, but merely stating that (and I believe you mean it) does not in and of itself create a difference between this site and WP. Now there are obviously differences between the sites: their goals, some policies, some copyright info, etc., but if you are committed to vanquishing anti-intellectualism I'm curious to see how you intend to do it.
When I first discovered Wikipedia, back when it was largely unknown and a year or two away from becoming the phenomena it is, I was very impressed with the intellectualism of its editors, and the knowledge they had and were anxious to share merely for the sake of sharing it. That in itself displayed a value of learning. I was naturally skeptical of its "anyone can edit" policy, but I found it to work better than I thought it would (of course it was, and is, far from perfect). As time went on, its popularity skyrocketed, and with that came all sorts of additions that I'm sure could very well be described as anti-intellectual; I know I don't need to tell you of all the minutae involving Pokemon, games, TV shows, obscure chacters from largely insignificant works of fiction, etc. The intellectuals are still there (many of them anyway, and more have come along as well), but certainly it is in the unintellectual realm (perhaps not entirely anti-intellectual) that Wikipedia has been experiencing the most growth. So, my question remains, if and when Conservapedia experiences growth along the lines of Wikipedia, how will you combat the infiltration of this un-intellectual material? Wikipedia is criticized for its alleged "mob rule"; what we have here seems to be an oligarchy of 31 sysops. I assume that number will grow as the site does, but will these handful of sysops each be the judge, jury, and executioner of the anti-intellectual? How can it be guaranteed they all have the same standards on the subject, as it is rather subjective. I pointed out the World of Warcraft article as a seemingly anti-intellectual entry. I'm sure whoever wrote it could add dozens more video game articles. From there it's just another step or two till you have an article on each and every Pokemon, and next thing you know you're looking a lot like Wikipedia. That's the problem with being an open-sourced wiki: once you reach a certain size you can't control your content. This site is pretty easy to police as of now; I earlier counted an easily patrollable 50 main space edits in a bit over two hours. Wikipedia often gets more than that in two minutes. Banning gossip (I'm curious about how Wikipedia encourages it) and obcenity aren't automatically going to make the site intellectual. Being a wiki is a blessing and a curse; I'm curious to see how you embrace the former and vanquish the latter. PortlyMort 23:14, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
PortlyMort, your comment is like Wikipedia: 564 words to say what could be said in 50 words. Please, be concise, per our rules.
In response, Wikipedia's goal is to boost traffic so its leaders can profit from a for-profit search engine. Gossip and pornography boost traffic. Those things also drive out intelligent people. Oprah Winfrey has more viewers, and less intelligent ones, than Bill O'Reilly. That's not an accident, but due to their different approaches.
Many and probably most intellectuals have left Wikipedia. We have several here, Citizendium has others, a German wiki split off, and there are other wikis. None of us cater to gossip and porn the way Wikipedia does. Even if there are a few intellectuals left at Wikipedia, they are far outnumbered by the least common denominator. And the profit motive ensures that traffic will remain the goal there.
Enough said. Our rules ensure quality, and Wikipedia's lack of good rules ensure its lack of quality. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:33, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Another non-answer. I'm all for being concise, but if "concise" means making blanket statements unsupported by fact I'll take the verbose (or perhaps by "concise" you're referring to the multitude of entries here like Rocky Mountains; hardly very useful). Anyone can make a statement like "Wikipedia's goal is to boost traffic", but can it be supported by facts? Wikipedia was founded long before the for-profit wikia ever existed, and its goals have stayed the same (regardless of whether it has lived up to them). Even if Jimmy Wales were to decide that its goals were to change, the fact is that Wikipedia is really run by its thousands of editors, most of whom don't give a hoot for Wikia. "Oprah Winfrey has more viewers, and less intelligent ones, than Bill O'Reilly", "probably most intellectuals have left Wikipedia" any facts to back that up? Additionally, you seem to imply that a for-profit Wikipedia has to rely on gossip and porn to make a profit. Well, before Wikipedia, encyclopedias were for profit. Do you mean to tell me that all encyclopedias throughout history are highly suspect and possibly prone to gossip and porn because they are (gasp) trying to make money? Anyway, since my questions aren't being addressed anyway, I'll switch from questioning to predicting. I predict that if this site grows substanitally (and it will have to if it wants to be a general purpose encyclopedia) it will be plagued by many of the same problems as Wikipedia. About the only way to combat unwanted editing is large scale blocks (which seem to be the way this site is progressing) which will severely inhibit Conservapedia's growth. I think Citizendium will have the same problems, though I do like the idea, in general. Your 7 rules won't save you, especially if you can't enforce them. PortlyMort 00:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
PortlyMort, it's becoming clear that your looking to criticize this site no matter what. I've reviewed your edits and found mostly talk, and little of value in the remainder. Let me give you another way that we're going to stay on a high plane here: we don't waste time on frivolous discussion. Please contribute, and contribute something of value, and then we can talk again. Otherwise, feel free to return to the National Enquirer of the Internet: Wikipedia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
We've still not been told who (user names) all these JDs, MDs and PhDs are. Are you doing a Microsoft and declining to give further details or is the existence of these experts more a matter of faith than a matter of fact? Let us know who these JDs, MDs and PhDs are are so we can view their contributions and benefit from their expertise. HiramWalker 15:13, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

To all those concerned with historical accuracy.

In May of 2007 I reviewed the online encyclopedia Wikipedia’s article ‘Lee Harvey Oswald’ and was astounded by the lack of sources and deliberate misquotations of Warren Commission witnesses. 31 of its 38 footnotes erroneously linked to John McAdams’ personal website whose Wikipedia screen name is Walloon.

After making only minor preliminary corrections less than five minutes later the article reverted to its previous content.

After entering the “Discussion” page to elaborate on the article’s errors all discussion was deleted from the “Discussion” page by Wikipedia Administrator Coelacan within the same time frame of five minutes, and blocked my IP address from Wikipedia. After changing my IP address I reentered the “Discussion” forum and again all comments were promptly deleted by Coelacan whom also deleted all postings for the past six months and blocked all “Editing” and “Discussion” pages for the article.

Over the following three weeks the exact same process repeated itself for any of the many Wikipedia articles even remotely related to the JFK assassination.

This exact same administrator does not only censor assassination articles supporting the lone assassin theory, but conspiracy articles as well in order to create strawman criticism of the Warren Commission.

I asked Administrator Coelacan directly on his message board why he was censoring all discussion on an epoch of history so popular that book stores have devoted entire sections to it? It violated Wikipedia’s policy of:

“Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard… Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways.”

What was the point in even having articles on the JFK assassination if they were only going to automatically link to one individual’s homepage?

On June 10, 2007 Administrator Coelacan responded:

“Shut the f[xxx] up you gook bastard! No one is interested in your commie f[xxx]ing lies! If you ever spread your f[xxx]ing lies here again I will f[xxx] your whole gook family in front of your face!”

Loudoun County Virginia law enforcement have since been notified to determine if Coelacan’s racially charged threats of violence have broken any laws.

Wikipedia’s deliberate censorship and abuse should be deeply concerning to Wikipedia’s many contributors.

Christopher (last name withheld) Leesburg Virginia”

None of would surprise me. Many of us have encountered similar censorship by Wikipedians.
I await investigation by other experienced Sysops here. Presumably your account is in the history files at Wikipedia and can be easily verified. In the meantime, how about staying awhile here and editing some entries? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
This is quite a damning story, so I went to look into it.
Wikipedia's article on Oswald has 118 references, most of which sort of reference, which hosts scanned copies of relevant historical documents (such as transcripts of the Warren Commission hearings and reports). This version of the article from May did include a few references to, most of them just transcripts like this, but the 80+ references mostly cite and other places hosting transcripts of hearings, public documents, and so on.
Coelacan didn't edit Wikipedia on June 10th, so I'm not sure how he could have possibly made any such comments. No such message exists on his talk page or on the talk page of the Lee Harvey Oswald article, or in any previous version of either that I can find.
I can't find anything backing up your accusations. Can you help me out? AManInBlack 23:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
It would take probably days of research to study all this properly, but with a quick look, I've found the following:
  • There was some discussion along these lines in that article around mid-May.
  • Some posts of a person signing themselves "(CWC)" were deleted from the talk pages. It appears, however, that this only happened on two occasions between 10th and 26th May, and neither of them was by Coelacan.
  • The claim that there were at one time during May 38 footnotes does not appear to be correct. When user (CWC) (the IP is from Wikipedia's publicy-visible logs, as "(CWC)" wasn't registered or logged in) first started editing the article on 10th May, there were 87 footnotes, and only one of them appears to be to, although there are at least three others with "mcadams" in the address. I didn't check the addresses behind every footnote, so I'm basing this on displayed addresses and checks on a handful of other footnotes.
  • An editor going by the name of Walloon has been heavily involved with the article. But whether or not he is McAdams I could not determine from my brief look.
  • My impression of one or two of CWC's comments were that they were a bit intemperate (calling someone a liar, for example), but did seem to indicate that he knew what he was talking about on the issue, so perhaps was dismissed too readily by those disagreeing with him.
Conclusion: There are holes in Christopher/Dollanganger's story, but not enough to totally reject his claims. It's still an open question, in my opinion.
Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
P.S. I had an edit conflict with AManInBlack's post, which I have not yet read.
The entire complaint that begins this header can be found here. U2 23:46, 20 July 2007 (EDT) User talk:U2
Hmmm, interesting. Now we have to wonder if Dollanganger is really Christopher from Leesburg, or just a troll copying something from that website. And I hadn't picked up that Coelacan's alleged outburst was apparently on Wikipedia; I'd read it as being private correspondence (how? I don't know), so hadn't checked that out, but as AManInBlack says, there's no record of it. Philip J. Rayment 23:54, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

As for "historical accuracy" its interesting to see that it all stems from a site supporting convicted holocaust denier David Irving, a man who has been found guilty and jailed for his attempts to rewrite history to suit his own agenda... File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your interest in this issue.

I am in a rush right now so let me take this one step at a time.

You say that little history exists to back up my claims. I am surprised ANY history exists of me on Wikipedia. As I said, within five minutes, literally, my comments from the discussion page were deleted entirely and a 72 hour block was put on my IP address. When I came in from another IP address the whole article was blocked. This happened in several articles.

The history of my changes in some of these articles was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator (since there is no history the administrator is unknown.)

Second, if you’ve searched for the text of my post you should have seen it began on I announced it could be distributed to anyone. Who sent it to David Irving I do not know. But I assure you I did not just copy and paste someone else’s post.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dollanganger (talk)

Comments deleted from a discussion page on Wikipedia (or any other Wiki) are not entirely deleted; they are still in the history. I looked at the history, and saw some deleted comments (i.e. they were in the history of the page, even though not on the current page). For example, here is evidence of some comments, I assume yours, being deleted. I also saw no sign of a 72-hour block, but then I didn't know which editor (IP address) to be looking under. If you could point to which editor (IP address) you were on Wikipedia when you got blocked, we could check out your claim more readily (again, such things are recorded in the history). Philip J. Rayment 09:42, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

OK I’m back.

Dear Philip

Thank you for taking my accusations seriously enough to research them. However as I said the “history” itself was deleted. No, there is not a record if it is deleted. This further shows Wikipedia’s fanaticism of censorship. They want no record of decent what so ever.

If you were able to find ANY history of “CWC” yes that was me. However, I just checked the “history” of the ‘John F. Kennedy Autopsy’ article and there is NO mention of me at all. Interesting how their article is longer than the entire autopsy report itself and does not contain any quotes from it.

My IP address has changed since May/June but it began with a “72” if that helps.

There is no record of Coelacan editing the articles? I do not know if he would show up in the history, but he did put the 72 hour address block on me and did write the threat.

John McAdams’ Wikipedia articles and personal website do contain a large number of footnotes referencing government documents such as the Warren Report and the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) Report.

Ironically or rather stupidly these documents read the EXACT OPPOSITE of what McAdams quotes. He is hoping readers are too lazy to double check. His incessant footnotes makes him seem credible at a glance but any serious researcher can see his lies for what they are. LIES.

Consider this, is it not odd that there is NO debate on Wikipedia of a popular and controversial topic like the Kennedy assassination?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dollanganger (talk)

There's loads of debate, all up and down dozens of talk pages.
There is no evidence that any such threat was made. There's no edit from that time and no deleted edits from that time. You haven't specified where this threat was made, and have made a number of claims that are demonstrably false. Additionally, this is all copy-pasted from a fairly flakey site, and has a ridiculous personal threat from someone who can just as easily block you and never have to deal with you again.
I don't think your story stands up to close examination. AManInBlack 19:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
The user "CWC" who posts above is apparently User:, User:, User:, User:, User: and User: There may be other identities, too, but those are the ones I found. The history hasn't been deleted from the WP database, its readable at those links. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:18, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Dollanganger, you didn't just claim that the history had been deleted, but that an Administrator deleted it. As far as I know, Wikipedia is like Conservapedia in that Administrator's don't have the ability to delete histories (other than total deletion of a page), only Bureaucrats can, and none of the people involved with editing the Oswald talk page is listed as a Bureaucrat. Also, it is simply not true that Wikipedia wants "no record of [dissent] what so ever". I've dissented plenty there, and I've seen dissenting comments deleted at times, but most dissent remains, and it all remains in the histories. Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually, on Wikipedia admins can delete specific difs. However, if there were any specific difs deleted on that page then the action would be noted on the log page here which as anyone can see is blank. So no specific difs have been deleted from that page. JoshuaZ 22:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I stand by every one of my previous statements.

1. Wikipedia history CAN be deleted without history. I have no evidence of this because the evidence was deleted. Why would I claim they deleted if it was there? I guess on some of the many JFK articles I edited there is still some history. But not on the Oswald page.

2. Why make a threat rather than simply block me? They did block me however I simply circumvented their system by using proxy servers. Hence the threat.

3. I did NOT copy and paste my statement from another site. You will note that in the Lancer JFK post I mistakenly refer to “John Adams” not McAdams.

4. As stated before the threat was made by Administrator Coelacan on June 10 2007.

5. ManInBlack, I am stating the facts. If you don’t believe me, you are entitled to your opinion.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dollanganger (talk)

Can you supply some evidence that Wikipedia history can be deleted by Administrators without that fact showing? And there are some edits by "(CWC)" on the Oswald talk page (and the article page, from memory) still in the history at least. I linked to one in my first reply.
Even if, being hypothetical, you are correct that they can delete the history without that showing, why do you expect us to believe an anonymous claim without any supporting evidence?
For reasons that I won't mention publicly, I am inclined to reject the suggestion that I made and AManInBlack repeated that you are a third party who simply copied the claim from the David Irving site. I believe that you probably are the editor also known as "(CWC)".
Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button on the editing box toolbar is quite easy.

Dear Philip, Thank you for at least giving me an opportunity to make my case. If I had any additional evidence I would have mentioned it. My only evidence is that I have no evidence. My point is that Wikipedia can and does censor and erase dissenting opinions from at least one topic.

Yes, this is certainly not true for every topic on Wikipedia. In every other case of controversial issues I have indeed found at least the history intact.

This shows just how fanatical the Warren Commission apologists are that they would within five minutes, delete, censor, and block all dissenting opinions.

If you want to put my theory to the test add into the article a censored fact, just one, under ‘Attempted Assassination of General Walker.’

“General Edwin Walker adamantly told the Warren Commission that Oswald was not the one to shoot at him.

“...I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don’t. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did… I want to go on the record that the city police has misused the Commission and also the FBI... I think there is a definite-- I don’t know that you could call it evidence but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case.” (Warren Report Vol.XI p.404.)

General Walker told journalist Jim Marrs, “The Warren Commission Report was ridiculous and a sham as well as an insult to the public’s intelligence.”(Marrs’ ‘Crossfire’ p. 403.)”

See what happens to you at your own risk. Dollanganger 11:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

About Bill Gates foundation

Why is it exactly front page news that he hasn't given money to faith based charity programs? Why does that make him hostile towards them? If mr Gates is an atheist, isn't it to be expected that he would rather give the money to secular programs than to fund some religious groups programs? And should he give money to organications from all the diffrent religions just so there wouldn't be headlines how he is hostile against them? Shouldn't we just be happy that he is helping other people? HeikkiL 14:15, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Heikkil, this is a conservative, Christian encyclopedia and the news will have a conservative, Christian viewpoint. (You might have noticed the conservative, Christian theme). Liberals may be happy that he is just helping other people, but we notice when faith-based organizations are absent. Liberals have lots of other places for their perspective; don't expect your viewpoint on the Breaking News of Conservapedia. In fact, you can expect a constant stream of news that only a conservative, Christian will appreciate. Get used to it. --Crocoite 16:55, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Heikkil, for starters Mrs. Gates is not an atheist. But even if both Gates were atheists, refusing to give anything or almost anything to faith-based programs is bizarre. Realize this is a Foundation we're talking about here, not someone's own personal account.

The Foundation is not giving to all the different religions. It is giving to *no* faith-based programs.--Aschlafly 17:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

I've spotted some faith based groups in the list of grants. The YMCA of the Inland Northwest, and Young Women's Christian Association of Seattle-King County-Snohomish County. (See these links [17], [18]). Those are the ones listed as grants for 2007, there may be others. There are other grants for the YMCA listed (do a search on YMCA and you get quite a few). There's also an article about a faith-based group they granted money to in 2003: [19] Bronzefinger 18:55, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

The YMCA hasn't been faith-based in perhaps 50 years. I don't even think the 2003 grant that you cite is faith-based. It did not appear to be from its link.
Is the Gates Foundation discriminating against religious groups??? Keep in mind that this is a Foundation, not someone's personal bank account. A Foundation is accountable to the public.--Aschlafly 22:00, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
That's kind of like saying the United Negro College Fund didn't give a dime to a single white student. It's a foundation, they may give their money to whoever they choose. Maestro 14:17, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't think the United Negro College Fund does discriminate based on race. I think it supports underfunded small colleges, mostly in the South, which accept applicants regardless of race.
But even if the UNCF did give only to African-Americans, it is up-front about that. Let's see the Gates Foundation change its name to the Anti-Religion Foundation and be up-front about how it generally refuses to support faith-based programs. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:21, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Not having given money to religious foundations doesn't make it anti-religious. It might very well be that most religious institutions simply don't have goals consistent with what they want to give to. In any event, an areligious(note not "anti-religous", simply areligious) would still be much more likely to give money to non-religious charities. This seems more like an example of a persecution complex than anything else. JoshuaZ 11:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps 10% of education is religiously affiliated. The number is higher for health care. 11% of federal grants are to faith-based programs. For the Gates Foundation to give virtually 0% to such groups is not being neutral. It's discriminatory. If 0% of the employees of Microsoft were minorities, the conclusion would be the same.--Aschlafly 11:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I’m new here to Conservapedia.

As a conservative myself I noticed immediately the liberal bias of Wikipedia. But it was no more biased than the mainstream media in general.

When I looked up articles on controversial topics and politicians some were obviously well policed. Ronald Reagan’s article contained very little of the usual false criticism of creating AIDS, stealing the election, and conspiring with terrorists. Other issues like the Second Amendment were almost unanimously conservative. John Kerry’s bio even contained the media banned photo of his book defacing the Iwo Jima Memorial.

When I attempted to correct the claim on Jesse Jackson’s bio that he had witnessed Martin Luther King’s murder. It was changed back within five minutes.

Religions and religious figures were also well policed. There was absolutely no criticism of them what so ever. Well, everyone should be entitled to their own religious beliefs.

Most of the liberal bias I found was in ancient history. BCE Before Common Era, that’s Russian for Before Christ, was used quite often. It was done in the fashion of the History Channel’s outrageous claims attacking Jesus’ divinity and blaming everything bad in history on white Christians.

Wikipedia mainly served as an entertainment site for writing and reading important articles on ‘The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer’, Larry Storch, and ‘Santa Claus Conquers The Martians.’

When it comes to actual history it is completely unreliable because you do not know where the truth ends and the lies begin.

Wikipedia boasts to finds truth through debate and consensus. However as we have seen with the JFK assassination, there can be no debate if ALL dissenting comments are censored. The consensus theory is an Emperor’s New Clothes argument. The majority can be wrong. If 99% of the public says that 1+1=3 it is still wrong.

My main objection to Wikipedia is that some people use it as a reliable source for serious issues. I hear most schools have banned it from being cited as a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dollanganger (talk)

  • You might want to check this out [[20]] on how we differ from Wikipedia! IMO, Wikipedia is mainly a vanity site, where marginal intellectual wannabe's can preen before their followers, and the rule of the mobocracy/conspiracy theorists rules the day. Welcome to CP, by the way! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:00, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

minimum wage

The statement on the front page that an increase of minimum wage will increase the number of school drop-outs does not follow from the data-sheet that was cited along with it. This is a very poor practice. Especially, since it was discussed at length before [21][22] . It looks like a malicious attempt to push an discredited view, hoping nobody will notice.User:Order July 22

Order, I know it's the style of liberals to pretend (falsely) that something was discredited. But this is basic economics (supply and demand) that increasing the minimum wage for teenagers will cause more to drop out of school. Maybe you don't accept supply and demand. Maybe you haven't ever taken an economics course. Whatever the reason, I'm not going to rehash this with you again, and I'm not going to try to convince you that basic economics is correct. I've added the link to the paper. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:14, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Hi Andy. Good to see that you are still yourself, and see that your first response is to blame someone to be a liberal, and you second response is to state that it it is just a lack of education on my part.
But now to the content. My criticism had nothing to do with liberalism, but with your poor way of using statistics to an otherwise unfounded opinion of yours. If it is supported by basic economics, quote basic economics. But you quote this set of data by the Labor department. Where in the quoted material is there any support for your statement that increase in minimum wage will increase the drop-out rate? Can you give the page and line numbers.
This has nothing to do with basic economics, just that you are using statics in poor way. Since you've done it repeatedly, I assume that you do it on purpose. So, please give a page and line number. Or quote relevant material instead. And we did discuss the Duncan-Turner paper already. They found that mandatory schooling was effective to prevent the effect you lament. It says so already in the introduction. User:Order 22 July, 15:55 (AEST)
User:Order, I'm afraid you're clueless about economics. Do yourself a favor and take an economics course. The one offered here is free. In my last attempt to satisfy you, I did add a quote proving the point to the front page.--Aschlafly 14:22, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, thanks for repeating the ad hominem argument by questioning my economics skills again, since it suggest that you have no actual arguments. But it is good to see that you nevertheless tried to improve the front-page piece on minimum wage. One mistake that you made along the way is to say that most people minimum wage are age under 25 are also high-school drop-outs. However, the numbers by the labor department do not give figures for high school drop-outs age under 25. There are figures for the age under 25, and numbers for high-school drop-outs, but not for drop-outs under 25. The front-page suggests incorrectly otherwise.
Furthermore, you say that most are drop-outs. The only supporting number I could find is that 29.8% are drop-outs, in table 6. For the ones under 25 this figure might be higher, since some adults get their high-school diploma later. On the other hand there will be many starters with a high school diploma whose first job is at minium wage level, so this group should be expected to be strong too. Either way, the data doesn't tell. And if we assume the numbers we got, then 29.8% is not most, because most people earning minimum wage, 70.2 %, are high school graduates. I might be poor in economics, but you seem to have trouble reading the statistics you quote.
Finally, what you forgot to mention in quoting the second paper is that this effect occurs only in states where students cannot drop out until they are 18. Since you quote the paper without comment, it seems like Conservapedia embraces the finding of the paper that making schooling mandatory until age 18 is effective in reducing the number of drop-outs. User:Order 23 July, 11:11
I see that the second half improved quite a bit. Good to see that that is possible. I am not sure if the paper says that it the biggest problem (compared to what other problems?), but if this is indeed the biggest, then the problems are apparently not that big. User:Order 23 July, 16:00

I checked the progress, and the following sentence on the front page "Half of all minimum wage workers in the United States are under 25 years old, and one quarter are ages 16-19, mostly dropouts." is still unsourced, and the source that is given misleading since it doesn't contain said information. User:Order 24 July, :00 (AEST)

Supreme Court Project

Good idea, but it's a little late. There are already multiple, "comprehensive" resources on SCOTUS on the internet, including the Oyez Project. I'd recommend tackling something else, or at least focusing on something in particular, such as "conservative victories in SCOTUS" or something. Stryker 18:23, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, I guess that all depends on what one considers a good resource, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Stryker, I'll add your link to our project, though I'm not sure it is worth much. I clicked on the entry about Justice Clarence Thomas and the only analysis of his legal perspective is this, which is then followed by a silly baseball question:
Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia. When Thomas began his tenure on the Court, many observers perceived him as a junior version of Scalia. Since then, Thomas has emerged from Scalia's shadow offering hints at his own conservative thinking.
"Far right" of the Court? Oh please. Rehnquist, by the way, died two years ago. And what are the "hints" of Thomas's own conservative thinking??? Oyez doesn't say.
Read our entry on Clarence Thomas and you'll find much more insight than what Oyez offers. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:48, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I meant it as a resource that covered the body of work that SCOTUS as done moreso than biographical information on the court. Maybe shifting the project to cover this aspect of SCOTUS would be a narrowed-down, easier to complete goal? (I'd get started on it, but I need to get caught up with some work today beforehand) Stryker 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Another question about the Daily Bible Verse

Just out of curiosity, how is each day's verse chosen? I haven't visited often enough to notice if they go in order, or grouped by themes.... What are the criteria? SigmaEpsilon 22:16, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is merit-based. Our top contributors become Sysops, and our Sysops independently change the front page, including the Bible verse. Others have been handling the Bible verse more than I. You can become part of this process and then contribute verses yourself. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:24, 22 July 2007 (EDT)



Is this appropriate for the Main Page? Esquire Magazine, hardly a conservative publication, in its issue released today main cover story asks, "Can a White Man Still be Elected President" (obviously a reference to Hillary & Obama). Under the photo of Edwards the caption reads, "SEXIEST WOMAN Alive." This has created quite a stir among Democrats and Edwards supporters. Is this appropriate for CP's front page? RobS 10:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how it is newsworthy or educational. I don't think the expression the "Sexiest Woman Alive" has anything to do with the politicians. It's just a National Enquirer-style teaser to get people to buy the magazine to look at pictures inside.--Aschlafly 11:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Bolívar's birth?

I have read the section "Today in History" and I have not seen a note related to Bolívar's birth on July 24. I hope Conservapedia corrects this omission soon.

--Juanmanuelarcia 13:26; July 24 2007 (UTC)

Done as requested. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Funniest Website

Conservapedia is one of the funniest websites yet. I thought it's existance was a joke when I heard about it on TV, but I am so glad that it turned out to be real. Whoever is running it has a wonderful sense of humor, and I applaud you! Some of the articles are simply hilarous, such as Al Gore, homosexuality, to name two. NOT having certain articles, especially things dealing with s*xuality is brilliant, since you don't even have to write something funny. Keep up the great work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npov (talk)

Will do. Please come back after you learn how to spell elementary words like "existence" (note the second "e") and "hilarious" (note the "i"). Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:51, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for the errors. I must confess that "existAnce" was how I thought it was spelled. "Hilarous" is just my bad typing I'm afraid. Thanks for the corrections. I trust no spelling errors occur in actual articles! On the other hand, that could lead to even more humorous articles, even if unintentional! Npov 15:29, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I have to put in my two cents here. Conservapedia is one of the funniest websites ever devised. I’ve told my friends about it and they visit sometimes for a guffaw or two. What makes it so great is that some of the articles here are jaw-dropping stupid, so a lot of the humor here is unintentional. See for example, the essay on the “New Ordeal” and the attempts of its author to justify the title. Even funnier are his attempts to find sources that support his essay. None of them do! Yours in Christ,--Eddiec 09:21, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the feedback! Godspeed Npov 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Brittanica errors

The 63 errors in question were the ones identified in a article in the magazine, Nature. These errors we uncovered as a result of a side by side comparison by experts on a given topic of approximately 40 articles. Wikipedia did not 'discover' them. The study was meant to be empirical and simple give a count of the number of errors, thus the severity of the errors was not an issue. The blurb on the front page is misleading. Dkips 16:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I've modified the Main Page "blurb". Philip J. Rayment 20:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
The above complaint is wrong. The 63 errors are claims by Wikipedia, not by the magazine Nature. The original version on the front page was correct, and I'm reverting it back. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:29, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
You are correct, sorry. Knowing that Nature did come up with some errors and Dkips' comment above must have prejudiced my opinion when I checked the Wikipedia article (which had a reference to Nature at the start) so that I didn't look at the Wikipedia list as carefully as I should have. Philip J. Rayment 21:07, 24 July 2007 (EDT)


I demand a recount. Bohdan 19:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that motion! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I third it :) DeborahB. 19:36, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I will be releasing official tallies shortly. Geo.Complain! 01:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Minimum wage information on frontpage

The first sentence on minimum wage and dropouts is still wrong. The US departments of Labors publication does not contain any information on how many people under age 25 earning minimum wage are dropouts. And the closest number I could find (29.8% of all people earning minimum wage are dropouts) suggest that it is not most. User:Order 25 July.

Revised. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:42, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks a lot. The second sentence is unsourced, so I guess it is a personal opinion. Because the Duncan Turner paper that is cited later, doesn't say that it is the "biggest problem", nor that young people are "hurting themselves" when they drop school to start working. The paper actually suggests that it might be beneficial for those students, but that it falls outside of the scope of the paper to make a definite judgment. User:Order 25 July 12:00

This information should go into an article about minimum wage laws, and the effects they have on teen or minority unemployment. Or we could have a debate on Debate:Does increasing the minimum wage help workers? --Ed Poor Talk 22:21, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

"Democrats shift approach on abortion"

Here is an interesting (and surprising) piece you may want to place on the front page [23]. Godspeed--Eddiec 09:39, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

We'll take a look. Thanks for the tip.--Aschlafly 10:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Fascinating; has the proverbial "light bulb over the head" finally lit for real this time? Stryker 10:46, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

The Ten Commandments

Simple question really. Why does Conservapedia not have an article on the Ten Commandments? There is an article on leviticus and the minor rules of the bible but the ten most important rules in the eyes of god are being ignored. I believe this suggests members have become so focused on the petty issues of men they have forgotten waht is important to god. Isn't that what being a conservative is all about? Conserving important ideas like... oh I don't know... THE WILL OF THE ONE TRUE GOD?

Those who believe their personal opinions are more important than the will of the almighty should be ashamed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utahraptor (talk)

Is this not what you're looking for???--Conservateur 16:49, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Legal Mortgage Cons Retarget Victims

For all the liberals claim to care about the working citizen this week Fox’s Robert Massi reported on the underreported mortgage scams damaging and destroying American families. Read the full story here:,2933,290629,00.html

Being in the real estate business myself I am very familiar with the wide variety of mortgage and real estate scams. While there are several techniques the overall synopsis is that people are conned into agreeing to housing payments they cannot possibly afford.

The concept of one stop shopping in real estate is like fast food back ally surgery. Real estate is life changing and rather than “one stop shopping” the buyer should utilize different resources to achieve a system of checks and balances. A separate Realtor, a separate lone officer, a separate title company. Between these three independents all the facts will be known.

The con of one stop shopping is that all three are tied into one, hence one hand washes the other.

Aren’t there fair housing laws to regulate this type of thing? Yes but they are hopelessly misguided. They regulate that buyers be told their rights, fees, and implications of their actions with a series of disclaimer and discloser forms. However the buyers do not read or understand them. Confronted with a mountain of paperwork they are simply told to sign away while at the same time being lied to by the salesperson, “All these forms are just standard. Your monthly payment will be low.”

A better form is needed. One that requires a signature by each line and one sentence to handwrite out in English to prove they speak English.

Sadly now faced with foreclosure these same people are being re victimized all over again by claims of saving their house with a new loan.

It is difficult to con an honest man and people should be more aware and not fall for scams that promise “one stop shopping” or “the best deal.”

The media should be focusing more attention on this.

Template changes

I have made some changes to the template names that are on the main page.

The template, AboutC, has been reworked and renamed to template:mainpageleft

The template, tfa, has also been reworked and renamed to template:mainpageright

I have integrated the newsline template into the mainpageright template for the time being. Changes were made mainly due to the confusion in having three templates in two columns. I was often confused with the newsline template, as I thought it would be the Breaking News section.

I have also reduced the size of the left column to make room for the Breaking News section, which seems to frequently use images that cover a lot of space.

I hope this has clarified what I've changed. Niandra talk 07:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Smashing! :D - --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)


When you say "Conservapedia has over 14,900 educational, clean, and concise entries", are you counting articles like this? PortlyMort 09:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

We're way over 14,900, without the (very few) entries like the one you cite. A look at your own contributions show room for improvement. In Christ--Aschlafly 10:02, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

too picky on usernames

I just logged in and what I saw about having a appropriate username largely made sense except for this sentence: "User names based on your real name or initials are preferred." I don't agree with this sentence. For example, I think liberals are too dominant in academia and if a conservative academic wants to contribute for example, I don't think he/she should be somewhat pushed into using his/her initials or something based on his/her real name. Also, if this message continues to be at Conservapedia we will have a slew of editors using initials and it will be hard to remember who is who. Conservative 17:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

You might be interested in this for the front page?

An interesting article on how Wikipedia is being 'hacked' by the US security services to spread deliberate disinformation! [24]

This is the old SlimVirgin-is-Linda Mack story; we already scooped that source [25]. RobS 20:14, 28 July 2007 (EDT)


Lay off the Dems. We don't see Republican bashing on even the most Liberal of news networks. Its things like this is why you are considered a laughing stock from good intelligent people Denzo 08:43, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, yes, you do. Of course, what you see on broadcast television and on CNN is a bit more subtle than what you see, for example, on The Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. You see Republicans subject to adverse-witness-style questioning and Democrats given friendly-witness-style questions. Some of those questions lead the witness, and I'm sure that Andy can tell you that "leading the witness" is an elementary ground for objection in a court of law.
Besides which, if the Democratic Party is going to behave in a manner that suggests that Thomas Nast chose their mascot (a donkey) better than he himself might have imagined, then you cannot blame even an encyclopedia for calling them on it.--TerryHTalk 09:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
We are NOT going to lay off on the Democrats. The MSM ignores a lot of their foolishness and liberal bias and we are not going to give them a pass. We will use everything we discover to expose their liberal agenda. --Crocoite 10:54, 30 July 2007 (EDT)


It has now been done [26] Juke 16:37, 6 August 2007 (EDT) Well, one difference that I see is that our front page doesn't call liberals "fascists" or anything of the like. DanH 16:38, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

That site looks like parody to me. Self-parody, perhaps? Hard to believe that any group of people, genuinely trying to persuade others to their POV, would write such frankly execrable prose. (Not to mention threatening people with murder.)--TerryHTalk 20:57, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
The talk page of the main page states that LP is not just a parody, but a parody of Conservapedia. Jazzman831 21:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Then it has degenerated into self-parody.--TerryHTalk 21:05, 6 August 2007 (EDT)