Talk:Main Page/archive5

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

John McCain

Once again we have linked to an article that has numerous unsourced statements in violation of the second commandment. This time, it's John McCain Myk 02:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please suggest some references, then. I don't understand you to be saying that any statement is untrue.--Aschlafly 11:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I put together a concise, factual, sourced article on John McCain and you re-added those self-described "conservative facts," admonishing me in the process. Forgive me if I feel perfectly comfortable pointing out your hypocrisy and am not so inclined to do your research for you.
A real enyclopedia might also see fit to mention that McCain's cancer is in remission, would refrain from mentioning what his democratic opponent "could publicize." A real encyclopedia might also mention that the Ethics committee came short of even censuring McCain. Perhaps it would, with a source, detail which elements of the religious right he criticized, rather than let every member of the RR think it might be their element Myk 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
If it was your edits I replaced last night, those edits had unacceptable liberal bias. Calling limits on campaign speech "reform"??? Please. Is censorship also "reform"???--Aschlafly 12:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
No. I put in facts about when he was born and when he served in the military and when his first election stuff. And my stuff had, you know, factual content and sources. Unspinnable stuff from either direction. You can always check the article history before saying something like that. And I eagerly await your response to my points. Myk 12:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't change any biographical data.--Aschlafly 12:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
But you did add all the unsourced information on electability and political record, right? Even if you didn't, that is tangential to the fact that you have a featured article which does not feature the commandments. Myk 12:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Daily liberal falsehood

What happened to the daily liberal falsehood? I was looking forward to this being a regular feature on the main page. Please bring it back. Thanks.--Conservateur 02:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You're right. I welcome suggestions.--Aschlafly 11:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
What gives liberals exclusive monopoly over falsehood - merely 'falsehood' should be enough? Unless that is, conservatives are confident enough in their own beliefs to tolerate a 'Daily conservative falsehood'. Wikinterpreter

Come on, the daily liberal falsehood would be great! BlackholeStorm

British Newspapers

"2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion."

Does the Main Page linking to journalist's opinions in British newspapers concord with the above sentiment?

Yes, because it's fully disclosed to the reader what he is getting. Wikipedia instead asserts a factual claim as part of the encyclopedic entry and it's not obvious that is merely a liberal journalist's opinion.--Aschlafly 11:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

The Times a liberal newspaper? In Britain its fairly Conservative. The difference between the Times and the Daily Mail is that the former is a broadsheet and the latter a tabloid. One endevors to be sober and factual the other confronational and opinionated. I will leave the readers to decide which is which. WhatIsG0ing0n 06:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the insight. I'll make a change to reflect your information.--Aschlafly 11:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

"Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." (Rules#_note-0) Surely the link should then have been to the actual report. I couldn't find it online. Has the editor here read it? Does the report mention the Muslim cause. I'm not sure whether this refers to Muslims causing the report or the report supporting the Muslim cause. Is this the kind of hight standard of entry one can expect from Conservapedia? WhatIsG0ing0n 07:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's clear, but I'll clarify further. All all your comments here going to be harshly written criticisms?--Aschlafly 11:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Why does the Anglo-American West worry about offending Muslims with a fact-based history curriculum, but not worry about offending Christians with a biology curriculum steeped in methodological naturalism? --Ed Poor 09:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
because in the UK, we (atheists/christians alike) believe the bible is something to keep in the home and not to bother people with? At best, you use it in a religious education class where it belongs. --Cgday 10:20, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
actually maybe I should clarify that - creationism is a dead issue, even for christians (well besides a small minority of people who - sorry american chums - are considered loons), the concept of wasting time in a science class of wasting time teaching relgious stories is one that most people would not find a sensible use of school time. --Cgday 10:41, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd rather take notice of what Jesus said than what UK atheists and their "Christian" supporters say. Things like:
  • go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19, NIV).
  • We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV)
Creationism being a dead issue is merely wishful thinking on your part; it's such an issue that it's been raised in Parliament in England, as well as being in the news a lot. If it's such a dead issue, why has the BBC sent film crews to the U.S. to do stories on the Creation Museum that AiG is opening?
So is teaching the true history of the world a waste of time?
Philip J. Rayment 11:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to have to side with my fellow Brit on this one. The only mentions in Parliament I can recall have been along the lines of "we're not teaching it, and we don't plan to, because it's not science." And while I missed the BBC's coverage of the Creation Museum, I distinctly recall how Channel 4 handled it; it was basically a "look at what those crazy colonists are up to" story. I can't recall any serious source referring to creationism as in any way legitimate. While I don't doubt we have some creationists over here, the issue really is pretty moribund. Tsumetai 11:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
May I return the compliment to my fellow traveller and Brit - creationism in the states is raised when shows need a cheap gag - all the coverage of the AIG is done in a mocking, look at those cranks. As for parliment, it was raised because there was a fear that someone was attempting to teaching creationism in the classroom - as stated, this was condemned by the house and the govt of the day. --Cgday 11:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Replying to both Tsumetai and Cgday, I never claimed that they endorsed creationism. I said that the coverage showed that it was not a "dead issue". Philip J. Rayment 12:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Even if Tsumetai and Cgday are right, that's not something to brag about. Censorship is not praiseworthy, and state censorship of criticism of a theory should not needed if the theory is right.--Aschlafly 11:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
And just as soon as there's a coherent theory of creationism with solid evidentiary support, I'm sure the government will be happy to put it into the science curriculum. Refusing to teach pseudoscience is not censorship. Tsumetai 11:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
There is already a coherent creation model with solid evidentiary support, but it relies on the presumption of a creator (as distinct from evolution which is based on the presumption of no creator), so it is an ideological issue, not a scientific one. Refusing to teach pseudoscience may not be censorship, but calling creationism pseudoscience in order to justify not teaching is just as bad. (And for the record, I'm not actually advocating that teaching it be required.) Philip J. Rayment 12:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
There may be a creation model that's coherent to people who start with the a priori assumption that God created all species as they are nowadays. Unfortunately, as a theory it's not falsifiable, so it isn't science, it's religion. Evolution is not based on 'the presumption of no creator', it's based on evidence. If contrary evidence comes up it will be examined and tested, and if the evidence is solid enough the theory will be modified or changed. Please elaborate on what experimental evidence you would require for a creationist model to be falsifiable. It is pseudoscience whatever way you look at it. Britinme 20:44 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Your obvious ignorance of the creation model (creationists do not believe "that God created all species as they are nowadays") is not a good basis on which to dismiss it. If you are going to dismiss an idea, surely you should have a reasonable understanding of that idea first?

As for falsifiability, I reject that broad claim. See here for why.

I looked at your piece about falsifiability, and it misses the point. The question I asked was what evidence there would be that would be falsifiable for the creationist theory. There isn't one, of course, because it starts with an assumption that you would not be prepared to change whatever evidence was presented. Therefore it's not science, because science is predicated on falsifiability. If you wouldn't change your view whatever evidence was presented, it's faith, not science. Britinme 23:11 3 April 2007 (EDT)
It appears that you haven't read it very well, because you are still demanding falsifiability for creation without first showing that evolution is falsifiable. And creationists have changed their views when appropriate evidence is presented, so you are simply wrong on that (what did I say about having little knowledge of the idea that you are dismissing?). Philip J. Rayment 23:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
You miss the point again. Falsifiability applies to any theory. There are many ways the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and indeed it has been tested over many years now. Nor does it preclude God as creator in the sense of starting off the Big Bang (another falsifiable theory). It doesn't preclude verifiable discoveries that would suggest the creation of the earth 10,000 years ago. However, there are no ways in which ID or creationism is falsifiable because both theories begin with the assumption that 'God did it'. Britinme 14:31 5 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I haven't missed the point. I said that you haven't shown that evolution is falsifiable, so your response was to claim that evolution is falsifiable. If I claimed that creation was falsifiable, you'd want me to back that up by demonstrating that my claim was true. I want you to demonstrate that your claim that evolution is falsifiable is true. And just to be crystal clear, I'm talking about evolution per se, not some particular detail of the evolution story. Philip J. Rayment 06:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The lines of evidence that could falsify evolution include a static fossil record (so far not apparent), the existence of organisms that combine parts from several different and diverse lineages which are not explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis (eg centaurs, gryphons), a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating, and observations of organisms being created rather than evolving by natural selection. Do you, for example, believe that God creates each new version of a bacterium that resists a particular antibiotic? If 'evolution per se' is not true, that would have to be the case. Now, I've shown how evolution could be falsified - how about you showing me how creationism and ID could be falsified. Britinme 9:12 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • A static fossil record could merely indicate that evolution occurred before the earliest extant fossils.
  • Organisms that combine parts from several different lineages do exist (for example, the 'camera-eye' that is found in a number of different lineages that didn't have a common ancestor), and they can't be explained by lateral gene transfer. I don't understand the significance of symbiosis here.
  • Mutations have not always been part of evolution, so finding that they can't accumulate would mean that mutations as a mechanism would have to be dropped, but it doesn't mean that evolution would be falsified.
  • Observations of organisms being created would not prove that they were all created; others could still have evolved.
Antibiotic resistance is not due to goo-to-you-type evolution, as no new genetic information is generated. Antibiotic resistance is entirely compatible with creation.
You've attempted to show how evolution could be falsified, but I believe that I've shown how those attempts are incorrect, and evolution would not be thereby falsified.
Philip J. Rayment 12:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well thank you for demonstrating what a robust theory the theory of evolution is. However, as we don't have space to deal with all your other objections, let's look at antibiotic resistance and the creation of new genetic information. Now it's true that you have not provided a definition of your understanding of the phrase 'genetic information', but penicillin-resistant bacteria do contain new information. Now that researchers have sequenced all the DNA, they can do before and after measurements to prove it. Researchers have compared DNA-sequences from colonies of bacteria with and without antibiotic resistance, produced from the same parent colony which demonstrates this. See . Nor is it the case that beneficial mutations necessarily require the removal rather than the addition of material. This would not explain the ability to consume a new food, since that needs new chemical pathways. This can be seen in insects that have become resistant to pesticides, for example Culex pipiens, which digest organophosphate insecticides because they have evolved esterases to enable them to do so. These esterases are known as alleles B1 and B2, and many strains of C.pipiens carry up to 250 copies of BI and 60 of B2. Before 1984, Californian mosquitoes had neither. See also . Now how about defending your own position by showing how the theory of creation/ID could be falsified rather than simply attacking mine. So far you're not demonstrating that you know what 'falsifiable' means. Britinme 14:37 6 April 2007
"Well thank you for demonstrating what a robust theory the theory of evolution is.". So robust that it can handle any contrary evidence means that it is unfalsifiable. And gaining new information is not actually addressing that issue anyway.
" have not provided a definition of your understanding of the phrase 'genetic information...'". Information in the sense of conveying meaning, not in the sense of Shannon information.
"...but penicillin-resistant bacteria do contain new information. ... . See". The overview of that paper—and a quick glance through doesn't appear to show otherwise—indicates that it is not talking about the generation of new genetic information, but the transfer of existing genetic information from other living things.
The change in Culex pipiens was due to gene amplification, i.e. more of the same gene, not new genetic information.
"Now how about defending your own position by showing how the theory of creation/ID could be falsified". I'm not claiming that creation per se can be falsified. I'm claiming that evolution per se, or at least its underlying assumption of naturalism, cannot either, so they are both in the same boat.
Philip J. Rayment 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well at least we agree that the theory of ID and creation is not falsifiable. Science doesn't start with assumptions - it investigates evidence and draws conclusions from what it sees. Nothing is taken on faith, and any theory can be altered when new evidence is produced and verified by repetition and investigation by many other people. That's why we teach science in science lessons and creation in religious studies. You might find it interesting to read the discussion on the Theory of Evolution talk page between TerryH and Dimensio. Britinme 22:50 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't agree that ID was not falsifiable; I didn't offer an opinion on that. I only referred to creationism and evolution/naturalism. As for science not starting with assumptions, this is not true. Read my comments now in Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 7. Search for the second reference to "Science doesn't start with any presupposition". Philip J. Rayment 23:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Gould has said that Darwin's motive was to explain how life came to be without God, and others have said similar things since. Darwin admitted that some of the evidence (the fossil record) did not support evolution, and he produced no evidence that one kind of creature could change into a totally different kind. It was not based on substantive evidence; it was more of a speculation of how life could have developed.

Your claim about contrary evidence is the way that science is supposed to work, but it doesn't always work that way in practice. See the linked page for more.

Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Registration is closed?

How do we expect to get contributors and editors if the registration is closed? Perhaps this is to encourage us to make bricks without straw? I don't know. +_+ Crackertalk 09:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Should open registration during daytime.Jaques 10:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Registration is opened from about noon to 10 pm NYC time. We've been closing it before the drunks come out. Actual times can vary due depending on our webmaster's schedule. We'll probably return to round-the-clock open registration again soon.--Aschlafly 11:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

British newspaper

In your piece on histroy lessons in Britain, you might want to include a link to the Guardians article on the subject [1] User:Order 4 April, 1:40 (AEST)

Thanks. Done.--Aschlafly 11:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
The actual report can be found here for those who wish to make up their own mind aboout the nature of the Muslim cause.
WhatIsG0ing0n 04:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"Are newspapers now dinosaurs?"

If by "dinosaurs," you mean, "coexisting with man at some point in the past," then the answer is "Yes!"  :-P -AmesGyo! 14:20, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, a similar point had occurred to me. However, Conservapedia is not nor, even if it is concerned with giving various Creationist viewpoints the chance for fair (or dare I say more-than-fair) representation. Dpbsmith 16:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)


"The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me." NY Times said, "So fix it." He replied, "The next day someone will fix it back."

That could equally apply here, for example the article Theory of evolution. Read the talk pages and archives for the saga. The kettle calling the pot black isn't the kind of stuff one would expect in a serious encyclopedia. WhatIsG0ing0n 05:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I could live with "Wikipedia does this" and "Conservapedia does that", but somebody should tell me how the New York Times can "say" anything. It was said by Douglas Hofstadter, who doesn't even work for the NYT. He was only interviewed.
Oh, sweet irony! A snippet about inaccuracies (in an article about a guy we don't even have an article about) contains... inaccuracies! --Sid 3050 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
The main page is correct. Read the article again. It was the NYT reporter who did comment as indicated.
And Hofstadter is related by marriage to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould ... how horrible!! Jrssr5 08:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
and the quote is about a more general statement about computers as a whole. 11:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr

I see the Martin Luther King Jr is on the main page. I believe the correct titling should read The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr, or Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Crackertalk

Many people who have PhD's don't insist on having "Dr." in their name. The insistence on the "Dr." is really by people who want people to forget that MLK was a minister. He was a Reverend first and foremost.--Aschlafly 20:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps we should have a section on this sort of topic in Conservapedia:Manual of Style? I know several people out here in meatspace who qualify for Rev. Dr.: it is the proper way to introduce a person so situated. It does not stress one over the other, (although, by custom the "Reverend" is placed first). Crackertalk 22:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
In my experience with the black Baptist community, the preference for "Doctor" indicates respect for the educational credentials, particularly for a Ph.D. in theology. It looks good on the church bulletin and sounds good when being introduced from the pulpit. In casual conversation, "Reverend" does just fine.
Certain communities are sensitive to 'level of education', and being called "ignorant" there is the worst insult. Perhaps this is because "knowledge is power" or "educated people make more money". Certainly people with college degrees command more respect. I guess it's an ego thing: we all like to be respected and acknowledged. :-) --Ed Poor 00:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Daily Mail article

Well played! Their headline gets it wrong, we repeat it. Only two officers are mentioned in the article, not four. And rather than the non-violent terms "handle" or "address" they use the word "tackle." And we repeat it. That's some well crafted exaggeration there. The headline also fails to mention that this was a written slur, not merely spoken "on the playground" as it were. Bravo. Myk 19:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

It is a particularly well framed article. It really reaches out to the ignorant who will forget two key things: 1) Police in England are usually unarmed, and 2) Police often work with parnters. Of course, we at Conservapedia only want people to think that a team of armed police went to violently apprehend an 11 year old. How delightfully conservative. --TrueGrit 20:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm glad there are folks here to defend the police's absurd actions, because otherwise people might not believe the story!--Aschlafly 20:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
It is indeed absurd that police time was wasted over a playground spat, and incredible that neither the parents nor the school could deal with the issue. It's almost as absurd as the 6 year-old kindergartener taken away in handcuffs in Florida for throwing a tantrum at school, and other similar incidents. I can't believe that anybody is actually defending such a waste of police time and resources. Britinme 21:57 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you'll find, Andy, not a defense of the police's actions but an offense against how they were reported. Myk 20:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah more hyperbole from the the P.T. Barnum of this blog! Well played! Aschlafly! Godman 20:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I am confused by the editorial position here. Two unarmed policemen go to talk to a child about sending an e-mail perceived by the recipient to be threatening=bad! But, yesterday the story was, city settles court case with protesters illegally detained in mass arrests by the police=bad! So the police should be free to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens en masse (or to give the charitable reading—the shouldn’t arrest people illegally, but if they do they shouldn’t have to pay for it), but they should not be free to question a child for harassing a classmate (or to give the news story the most charitable reading possible, they shouldn’t be allowed to scare a child while examining why that child scared his classmate)? (P.S. I am defending the police actions—as reported in the body of the story, but not as reported in the headline—I want the police to investigate claims of harassment and other crimes, that’s their job, and if it turns out that the claim was legitimate I want them to arrest the kid, if it turns out that the other child knowingly filed a false report I want them to arrest him. I can’t figure out what the police supposedly did wrong here—again as reported in the text of the article not in the headline.)--Reginod 21:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone has already mentioned that the article mentions two policemen. When two policemen turned up unannounced, four are mentioned here. Others have explained the nature of British policing. As has been indicated above, the police are obliged to follow up and investigate complaints ... after initial investigation it is then decided whether or not the complaint was justifyable. That's their job.
Is there some kind o policy here to appear as stupid as possible?
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
There is a plicy here to aggitate and inflame. These are radical marketeerrs not conservative Christians. Once you understand that everything esle makes sense. Seriously, think about the way Ashlafly approaches any difference of opinion. Godman 07:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Each account above, "Godman" and "WhatIsGOingOn", is going to be blocked with the next example of a silly, inappropriate edit like that above. As we grow we just don't have time for this nonsense any more. There will not be another prior warning.--Aschlafly 14:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Someone has a strange definition of the word grow.Complete 14:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Chicago Tribune

In the Chicago tribune it says that Conservapedia's entry on the Democratic Party says:

Many Americans are also wary of the Democratic support for the homosexual agenda, including forcing gays to marry thereby weakening the institution of marriage.

I couldn't find this sentence anywhere, but if it exist somewhere, it should be removed. The notion that democrats want to force gays to marry, is so naive, I makes me supect that it was written by one of our younger editors. Order 5 April, 12:10 (AEST)

Also, the Scopes trial - Gore link is kind of ridiculous. It is remarkable that Gore lost in his home state, but this the link with teaching evolutions is contrived. Order 5 April, 12:10 (AEST)

The article that was picked up by the Chicago Tribune ran in other papers a few weeks ago. Look around this time frame for the edits that you are looking for. --Mtur 22:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
If you read the Scopes talk page you'll see the interesting discussion that led to that inclusion. Crackertalk 22:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't wait. I am always up for some entertainment. Order 5 April, 12:10 (AEST)
"Order", as we grow the silly sarcasm is getting tiresome. Your account will be blocked if you persist in making such unproductive comments, particularly on a high-profile page like this. The sarcasm is anti-intellectual and distracting to legitimate users. Don't expect another prior warning.--Aschlafly 14:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I tried to tell you that Gore connection in the article on the Scopes trial makes conservapedia look bad. My guess is that is why it is in the tribune article. Do whatever you want with this information. Order 6 April, 10:10 (AEST)
Ok, I read the discusssion on Gore and the Scopes trial, and what it tells me that there is an overall agreement that the reference to Gore should go, but that Aschlafly thinks otherwise, and that's why it's still there. Order 6 April, 10:11 (AEST)
Actually, sarcasm, used sparingly, is a well-recognized rhetorical tool. Speaking of irony, I think you may have jumped on the Trib article a little to quickly. The Trib's MSM article has a very ironic, mocking tone. I wouldn't put it in the win column yet.--PalMDtalk 15:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually I have been being completely sincere. No sarcasm or irony intended. So, when you block me, it will be for disagreeing with you and challenging your view, not sarcasm. Sarcasm would be if I made some sort of snarky comment about the poor quality of the factoids on the main page without merit, which I'm not. I sincerely don't think dishonesty, misrepresentation and disortation are good qualities for an encyclopedia. I believ many editors here will agree with that. I do, however wonder about the curious double standard. Why is it OK for you to be sarcastic and insulting to others? Why is it OK for you to brand anyone who disagrees with you on any point a liberal and antiChristian? I guess the old adage might makes right hold true here. Godman 17:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Excellent point there. The Tribune article cites from the Theory of evolution article - exactly the one section that has NOTHING to do with evolution (Yes, it's my favorite section ever, the one with the lions - although it cuts off before the lions :( Boo.). Also note the choice bit about "edited primarily by liberal atheists who lack basic understanding of logic". It's either ironic or sad that that article counts as "more favorable" on Conservapedia... --Sid 3050 20:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid, If you liked the lions, you should read the "ants" I added a while back. Conservative 20:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
*wipes away tears of laughter* Dude, I'm one of the guys who had been openly advocating for removing the entire section about lions. It's my favorite section ever because it makes absolutely no sense - it has no real connection to Evolution. It's just a bunch of examples where "the Bible had been right before the scientists" or something, thus proving... uh... what exactly? That evolution is... errr... possibly not right because... uh... the Bible says so, and... uhm... the Bible has been right about a few things before?
The section about the lions is the equivalent of Monty Python's "And now for something completely different."
I'm honestly sorry that you thought I'm cheering you on there, but the "exactly the one section that has NOTHING to do with evolution" bit should've given you a rough hint. I'm not going to look for ants in evolution, but thanks for the heads-up anyway. I'm "happy" with the lions. --Sid 3050 21:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
The ants bit is indeed interesting. It shows how a small neural network can implement an advanced algorithm. Not that it particularly new, but its nice to see how it works in nature (ants). 'Answers in Genesis' adds to the scientific findings, that they cannot imagine that this neural network emerged by chance. User:Order 6 April 12:00 (AEST)

Liberal bias

A Wikipedia founder denies it has liberal bias.... Could someone more knowledgeable than myself add a definition/description of liberal bias to the article Liberal bias so that those of us who are unsure of what it is can recognise it and then deal with it. WhatIsG0ing0n 07:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

<chuckle> An inability to see liberal views as liberal views is hardly an adequate definition. What chucklehead put that in there? </chuckle> --Ed Poor 09:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
That would be Bernard Goldberg. Myk 11:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
<grin> I was referring to myself. Our definition of Liberal bias consists of taking prominent people to task for denying that they harbor it. This is not acceptable, and I request your help to redefine the definition. Also, tolerance is still a red link. --Ed Poor 13:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I find that rather symbolic, actually ;) Oh fine, I'll do something about it... --Sid 3050 13:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
There, you happy now? :-P --Sid 3050 13:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"Namespaces" - need better labeling

Right now, "namespaces", which do not have to citations I believe, are labeled thus: Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions

I think this is bad idea in regards to labeling. It makes it seem as if it is a Conservapedia article and not a debate.

Here is my suggestion:

Have this label instead:

Debate: Alleged Bible contradictions

This way the "uncited material" is not confused with a Conservapedia article. Problem solved.

I bring this up because I was getting very annoyed with "namespaces" that I thought were creating a lot of unbacked up claims that were downright false.

Conservative 19:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you even understand what "namespaces" are, Conservative? The term "namespace" refers to the prefix attached to titles. When there is no prefix (like Theory of evolution), It is in the "main" namespace, also called the "article" namespace. There is also the "Talk:" namespace (like Talk:Theory of evolution), the "Conservapedia:" namespace {like Conservapedia:Commandments), the "User:" namespace (like User:Conservative), and the "User talk:" namespace (like User talk:Conservative). It's like a "realm", or the "type" of page it is. --Hojimachongtalk 19:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

From User talk:Aschlafly

Name spaces need seperating

Would it be reasonable to:

This way individual critiques of various things (such as Conservative's "Theory of Evolution") can be in a place where they are respected as single author articles. Of course these essays should be linked from appropriate articles.

Furthermore, it cleans up the space for the original article to have unbiased (not necessarily neutral, but certainly not one sided) material that would be a good resource for students to learn from. --Mtur 20:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember Andy posting about users being welcome to create their own articles, seperate from the actual topic page, to express opinion, and pointing a way to do so. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't seem to find the reference or the link on the how to for this. It certainly hasn't been encouraged so far. --Mtur 21:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I do believe Andy made an example page, for user articles....someone else remember this? --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Can anyone explain clearly what a namespace (or name space) is, and how it would help us to organize this project? We don't even have an article on this concept. --Ed Poor 11:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Long story short to avoid a thousand edit conflicts: Namespaces are containers for articles. Like groups. There's the "Main" namespace (all regular articles), the "Talk" namespace (All "Talk:..." pages), the "Conservapedia" namespace, the "User" namespace, "User talk", etc.
Main benefit (aside from the obvious visual clue) is that they can be included in or excluded from searches (each namespace has its own checkbox for the search).
Always assuming that it's properly set up (see my note below). So just starting Debate:Why this is not in the Debate namespace would currently create a "Main" namespace article (since we don't have a "Debate" namespace in our config yet).
However, Talk:Why this is in the Talk namespace would in fact create a proper Talk page for a non-existent article. Poke me on my Talk page for a longer version with links and such. --Sid 3050 19:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Additional note: You can also filter by namespace (including or excluding one) on the "Recent changes" and on "My Watchlist". If we had a properly set-up "Debate" (and "Debate talk" for the associated talk pages) namespace, we could include those in the filter to (for example) only check the recent changes in debates or to check all recent changes except for debates. --Sid 3050 19:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
The problem with user pages is they don't necessarily represent a completed work (the current trend appears to one of draft or scratch space). Furthermore, if user pages are to be the answer for the essay question that still doesn't handle the debate and conservapedia documentation collision of name space. --Mtur 14:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, You're a user here and a sysop and welcome to do whatever you like, but know that there are currently 98 entries on the debate page alone that would need to be moved over. Myk 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Argh. Conservative, there is not just one "namespace". There are many, and "Conservapedia" is one of them.
It should also be mentioned that the whole "Please make new namespaces for debates and essays/original works" gig came up a few times so far.
Technical input: Please don't just slap a "Debate:" prefix to articles. From what I see here, the actual namespace should be properly created by the uber-admin first:
(After instructions on how to create the "Foo" and "Foo talk" namespaces)
Note: Any existing pages whose titles start with the letters "Foo:" or "Foo talk:" will become unavailable, so you'd better rename them first.
So create namespace first, move stuff into it afterwards. --Sid 3050 19:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that there's a better understanding, can someone go back to [Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions] and restore the deleted material and unprotect it? --Mtur 20:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Name spaces: question mark and debate prefix

I was looking for vandals via the "recent changes" log when I accidently came upon a "namespace" called Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions

I never was confused about "namespaces" before because they had a ? mark after them. Such as Conservapedia:Is the Bible inerrant?

I think we should make it a rule to have the "debate" prefix and the question mark.

For example,

Debate:Is the Bible inerrant?

This would clearly set it off as a debate and not an article. Conservative 20:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That would only work if User:CPWebmaster created a Debate namespace, else the 'Debate' articles would inhabit the main namespace and pop up in searches and as random links, which isn't ideal. I suggested it to him a while back, but no response; perhaps we should raise it again? Tsumetai 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I think we should raise it again. It would eliminate the confusion. Personally, I would prefer to debate at a discussion forum and not a wiki where your "opponent" can erase your material. Conservative 20:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Ironic, considering that you were the one who started deleting stuff (though based on a misunderstanding). ;)
And anybody can check the histories. So far, nobody stepped forward to complain about such practices though, so I guess that the users here stick to the general, unwritten laws about wikis (the same unwritten rules of conduct that prevent Talk pages from total anarchy). --Sid 3050 20:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
It is perfectly possible to have a debate on a wiki. People just have to be civil about how they talk to each other. The designation for a place to have a debate is something that will happen in every community - be it online or not. Most often that debate place is a special section of the community's space. --Mtur 20:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Not all debate topics end with a question mark. I could easily make Conservapedia:Discussion about Abortion.
And once again, you're not quite getting the "namespace" concept, although you're pretty close. The "namespace" is just a group of articles. All "Talk:..." pages are in the same namespace ("Talk"). The article name (the part after "Conservapedia:" or "Talk:" or whatever) can be anything. The article name is also not part of the namespace.
Think of it as a bunch of folders on your hard drive. For example, you got a folder for "Documents" and one for "Images". Namespaces are basically just that: folders that let you organize (or classify) stuff.
But yes, it would indeed be nice if we got a few new namespaces like "Debate" and "Debate talk". As Tsumetai said, though, that requires some webmaster action. --Sid 3050 20:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

April 5th

President Ronald Reagan responded by bombing Libya 10 days later, injuring Qaddafi personally. So Reagan appeared in person and injured Qaddafi. Good on the man. I never thought he had it in him;-) WhatIsG0ing0n 06:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*laughs* --Sid 3050 09:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I find it interesting that the note claims that Qaddafi was injured, which he was not, from the sources I have been able to find. It fails to mention, however, that the attack killed Qaddafi's adopted daughter, and injured two of his other children. Boomcoach 13:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
When someone goes after members of your family, that would injure you too, even though you were not physically harmed. The statement is valid. Karajou 16:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
C'mon, so when listing casualties from a bombing, we not only have to include the people who sustained physical injuries, we also have to include anyone who felt bad because they cared about the people who were physically injured. If we count casualties that way, the US casualty count in Iraq will soar! Face it, the news blurb was wrong. There is no reason to make it an exercise in apologetics. Boomcoach 14:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


This article appeared on CNN today ... very good read What Would Jesus Really Do Jrssr5 10:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Australia's biggest newspaper

Australia's biggest newspaper? is that in terms of page size or sales? Come on people. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. WhatIsG0ing0n 07:05, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Readership. Philip J. Rayment 07:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps that should be adjusted. Newspapers are seldom described as big. Perhaps Australia's most widely read newspaper? Myk 12:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I was forgetting that I could edit the main page. I've changed it to read "Australia's largest-circulation newspaper". Philip J. Rayment 13:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

April 8

How can you say that Circa 33 AD Jesus rose from the dead on April 8th. You might rephrase and say that today marks the day, but it's not April 8th. Easter changes every year. --TrueGrit 13:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That kind of thing seems to be part of the house style hereabouts;-). The word 'believe(d)' seems to be missing too.
WhatIsG0ing0n 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I take no issue with a persons freedom to believe in a particular religion, or not. After all, the United States and Canada both have freedom of religion, and the freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a constant date like Christmas, rather it is a date on which the event is recognized. --TrueGrit 14:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed it to read Easter Day (April 8 this year). Philip J. Rayment 18:24, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed it again, because my previous change made it read as though Picasso died on Easter Day, which was probably not the case (although I didn't check). It now reads Easter Day/April 8. Hopefully nobody will think that's unclear. Philip J. Rayment 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


The update to the news about the Masters says the article is from the Guardian (it is, but you link to, also the picture of "the real thing" has nothing to do with the Masters, unless Jesus rising from the dead happened at Augusta. Jrssr5 09:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Both are correct and I see no reason to make a change.--Aschlafly 12:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not saying the stuff is wrong, but you've misreferenced the link and the juxtaposition of the picture does not make sense. Jrssr5 12:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
This picture is still bothering me ... I'm going to update it if that's ok with everyone. Right now I read the news expecting a picture of Tiger losing or Zach getting the green jacket. Jrssr5 15:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Jrssr5, you take things far too literally. Do you read poetry and novels the same way you analyze the main page? Sometimes facts can be related by an underlying theme rather than by connecting the dots.--Aschlafly 17:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ach...facts is facts. When you read something expecting facts, you should not read it like you read poetry or fiction...whole different animal.--PalMDtalk 17:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

To those complaining about the Easter golf picture - it's under the News section. Why are taking it so literally? If Zach Johnson says that the resurrection of Jesus is what helped him win, then it's important we provide a picture of it to give some context to his statement.--Conservateur 18:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Obv it's gone now, but he didn't credit the resurrection, just Jesus. And when you're reading a news article or news flash full of facts, the content should match the picture. A simple break or better caption to the picture would have made the front page look a lot better.
And as for the literal thing ... do I really need to point out the hypocrisy of Andy telling me that I take things too literally when he interpets the bible literally? Jrssr5 08:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Do I really need to point out the lack of logic in that? It is entirely reasonable to point out that someone is taking something more literally than intended, while at the same time taking something else as literally as it was intended. Andy obviously thinks that the Bible should be taken literally (well, according to your description), so there is no hypocrisy involved, even if he is wrong in that and it shouldn't be taken literally. This is really a case of a critic comparing apples and oranges and implying that they are the same thing. It's simply not a valid comparison. Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
<beat dead horse> Maybe you do need to point out the lack of logic. Who says that the News section isn't to be taken literally or read as one whole section? </beat dead horse> My only original point was that the news didn't flow well. That's it. Jrssr5 12:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I did point out the lack of logic (the second sentence of my previous post). If the News section is to be taken literally or read as a whole section, that affects one of the premises on which the logic is based, it doesn't affect the logic itself. I haven't and I'm still not commenting on the original point, just the logic of your accusation of hypocrisy. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Civil War article

Anyone else notice that the featured civil war article is unfinished. it is divided into parts, and 3 or 4 of them are not done yet. --CPAdmin1 18:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I did that when I started the article, and the prelude to it got too big. It's divided into separate articles by year, and 1862-1865 is not finished at this time. Karajou 20:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Daily Theodore Roosevelt Quote

TR, one of the greatest presidents in our history was known for his amazing ability to bring justice to the nation and was famous for his excellent speeches and quotes. Over his life, Roosevelt wrote 35 books and hundreds of letters. In addition to the amazing amazing amount of literature that he wrote, TR was also a firm believer in "Applied Idealism" and "Practical Politics". This ability to see beyond contemporary problems as well as an outstanding vision for justice allowed TR, only an average man to become a giant. In the end though, it wasn't just Roosevelt's many abilities which set him apart from everyone else in his time, it was his views of what America could become that drove our country forward to where we stand today.

Over the past century, Theodore Roosevelt has become more or less an obscure figure in history. Today, it is important that we don't forget TR or the power and potential of America which he proudly stood for.

Therefore, I wish to propose a daily quote from Theodore Roosevelt on the main page not only to commemorate the man, but his country. Thousands of quotes from Theodore Roosevelt exist, so finding one for each day should not be very difficult.

Here are a few links to pages with possible quotes.

A possible first quote could be the "Big Stick Quote".

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" Theodore Roosevelt

Great suggestion. Done. Please remind me in a few weeks to put another quote of his on the front page. Also feel free to improve his entry here at Theodore Roosevelt. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

UPDATE 4/19/07

I pulled the following quote from the 1924 edition of TR's autobiography.

"When the criminal has been punished, if he then shows a sincere desire to lead a decent and upright life, he should be given the chance, he should be helped and not hindered; and if he makes good, he should receive that respect from others which so often aids in creating self-respect --the most invaluable of all possessions." Theodore Roosevelt- An Autobiography, In Cowboy Land

I know that this is a long quote, but it is also very powerful. Don't feel like you need to include the entire quote.

April 12 - this isn't notable?

Forty-six years ago today, on April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin achieved Earth orbit in a Vostok rocket (the mission being named Vostok 1, similar to the American Apollo and Mercury missions).

By doing so, he became the first human in all of history to actually leave the earth. He took the first step on humanity's road to the stars. Isn't this notable enough to be mentioned on the front page for today?--M 12:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Not counting Enoch? Crackertalk
Yuri Gagarin was the first non-mythical figure to leave the Earth.--M 17:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Enoch wasn't a myth. Karajou 17:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
If someone isn't a historical figure - and by that I mean someone for whom we have historical evidence of their existence, tax records or physical evidence, not just a mention in a religious text - then they really have to be termed a mythical figure. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist...but it does mean that we cannot assume that they did. Heck, even Jesus was mentioned by Josephus.--M 12:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
By that definition, fully 99.9% of the entire population of the Roman Empire were "mythological" figures. If you haven't got physical records of these people's existence, such as the tax records as you said, then how did cities like Pompeii get built? Karajou 13:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
There's plenty of historical evidence that the Roman Empire existed; it's rather silly to presume that an empire can exist without any population. However, putting forth the existence of a particular person requires historical evidence; I can't say that there was a blacksmith named Jarvis in the town of Pompeii without some kind of evidence to back that up. Unless Enoch is mentioned somewhere other than in a religious text, you can't justifiably claim him as a historical figure.--M 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes it is rather silly to presume an empire cannot exist without people, just as silly as presuming people cannot exist without documentation. Karajou 19:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure what M means by "physical evidence", but most evidence that someone existed, including tax records, is written documentation. So why arbitrarily exclude written documentation that also happens to be a "religious text"? Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Largely because the religious text in question has been copied and recopied and translated and edited extensively over the four thousand or so years it's been bouncing around the globe. This is the same book that has the Sun standing still in its tracks and the Earth resting on pillars, remember; it can't be taken as literally true. All that aside - why was Enoch brought up with this? If we're talking about Noah's father, he "walked with God, and was not, for God took him". That sounds more like death than spaceflight to me; Heaven's not up in the sky, remember?--M 10:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
No, the idea that the Bible has been "copied and recopied and translated and edited extensively over the four thousand or so years" is bibliosceptic misinformation. The Jews were extremely concerned to copy it accurately, and the evidence is that they succeeded. Our modern English translations have been made from the original languages, so that is a single-step translation. The oldest manuscripts generally date far closer to the originals than almost any other ancient documents, and there are far more copies of them. All this amounts to them being a far more reliable source than almost any other ancient document.
The Bible (like most documents) sometimes uses phenomenological language (i.e. stated from the point of view of the observer), symbolism, and metaphor, just as we do today (we still refer, for example, to sunrise and sunset, even though we know that it is the Earth rotating). The Bible does not teach that the Earth is resting on pillars. It does refer to the sun apparently "standing still" on a couple of occasions, but both are clearly miraculous events, i.e. they are not describing the normal activity of the sun, but an exception occurrence brought about by direct intervention of the Creator, who, by definition, is capable of doing such. As such, there is nothing inconsistent about it, nor contrary to modern science unless you first of all presume that God doesn't exist.
Enoch is listed as the one human who went directly to God without dying, hence the reference to him being the first to "leave Earth". Heaven is figuratively "up" (Jesus ascended into heaven). Philip J. Rayment 11:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I saw it too, and the line was changed to reflect it. Karajou 13:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Gagarin was the first human to leave Earth without Divine help (and therein lies the notable achievement). But I'm not sure that's really necessary to spell out. Philip J. Rayment 20:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it was positively divine of our Heavenly Father to inspire mankind to understand scientific principles well enough to be able to build flying machines. Some have been used in warfare, such as the propeller planes that won World War II in the Pacific Theater. That less than 70 years after the first successful powered airplane flight, a man could land on the Moon is a testament to His wisdom and creativity, inherited by His beloved children. --Ed Poor 20:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

How good of God to help us to find new ways to kill each other...--Άθεος 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
How clever of you to make a comment about God inspiring us to understand scientific principles that produce good sound like something bad. Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
"Some have been used in warfare." There are those of us who regard that as a bad thing.--Άθεος 16:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Imus article

The article cited is from the NYPost, not the New York Sun. The "you people" remark was well reported, I saw it on MSNBC, and the source indicates nothing about causation. Myk 02:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, he's not "liberal's best friend." I always hated him.-AmesGyo! 11:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Stem cell article - Andy, sources?

Andy do you have any sources about how the "powerful abortion lobby" is stifling science? Or does this allegation rest only on a comparative study and your own, err, intuition?-AmesGyo! 22:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks AmesGyo! here's my take:
I read the link and found nothing about how adult stem cell research projects continue to succeed outside the United States because the powerful American abortion industry continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States. All I could find was that Burt said "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach." a Mr. Weir cautioned "It's really too early to suggest to people that this is a cure,'" and discovered that the patients were using their own stem cells. None of which has any relevance to the claim made above.
The second link certainly mentions using brain cells [...] as alternatives to using embryonic stem cells for the same purpose. Jean D. Peduzzi-Nelson, PhD, a university of Alabama at Birmingham researcher's studies conducted in the U.S. have shown some improvement. Note in the U.S., why didn't the powerful American abortion industry stop him? The same link also mentioned the moral objections of some scientist to embryonic stem cell usage but also adds Many researchers and lawmakers want to expand the use of embryonic stem cells, arguing that they could have the potential to treat more diseases than adult stem cells because they may be able to differentiate into a wider range of tissues and have an unlimited capacity for self-renewal unlike stem cells from adult organs.
In the third link I couldn't find where pro-abortion (why not pro-death: the opposite of pro-life?) New Zealand banned adult stem cell trials for paralyzed victims I did find out that a Ministry of Health committee rejected ONE trial using transplanted stem cells because they found the proposal for the trial to be lacking crucial information such as potential side-effects. Not the same as New Zealand banning adult stem cell trials for paralyzed victims.
This misinformed propagandizing does the Conservative cause no good. It makes us look like buffoons. Why do it?
Presumably because we are buffoons :(...
Also, I don't think the data in the cnn report on diabetes was published. CNN is not a science journal, and citeing it as an uncorroborated source for something so controversial is foolishness. RDre 07:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If I can butt in here, here is an article that might help. I haven't read the Conservapedia article on stem cells, so I don't know if this article is relevant to AmesG's concerns or not. Perhaps it will answer his questions, perhaps it won't. Perhaps it will give Andy some sources, perhaps it won't. Perhaps it's already used in the article, I don't know. But I offer it in case it might be useful. Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The first sentence doesn't make much sense, no matter what you think about the issue. If you strip it down, the sentence says "Adult stem cell research is successful outside the US because it is unsuccessful in the US," whether the abortion lobby phrasing is in there or not. Perhaps I don't understand the logic here, but what does the success in the US have to do with success out of the US? Sterile 14:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The co-author of the cited brazilian study is an American from Northwestern University. There is nothing on the legal boks or otherwise to suggest that American octors are not interested in Adult stem cell research. A quick look at the NIH stem Cell info site shows lots of American Adult Stem Cell research. Front page stories should at least be put to the Google test. It took me 2.5 minutes on Google to disprove most of the article. Is this the quality that is reflected throughout Conservapedia?? -- Third Day

Google isn't trusted around here. Apparently is has liberal bias.
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry to burst your bubble, but in Washington, D.C. and other major Capitols, it isn't trusted either. It has proven to be good for a first pass, but it is too open to "bombing" and minipulation, for serious academics, public officials, to bother with. I have fired staffers in Congressional offices for relying on it. Not just Republican staffers, Liberal Democrats as well. --~ TK MyTalk 18:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
That adequately describes why saying "a google search for blah, blah and blah yielded 3 million results" but not for saying that the information found in the relevant pages is inaccurate. The info would be accurate or inaccurate regardless of its position in the google rankings. Myk 18:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, see, that is the problem with so many users here, Myk, making an assumption into some generality. One wouldn't discharge people if that were the case. Minipulation and bombing causes whacko websites, like and it's extreme right-wing counterparts to float to the top, and they are full of complete hogwash, presented as facts. Researchers use LexisNexis, not Google. --~ TK MyTalk 18:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Researchers also check multiple sources. Anyone with half a brain knows to check out several sites instead of blindly clicking on the first one that pops up. Jrssr5 09:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


I don't know if anyone noticed yet, but Trus[t]worthy is misspelled in the current CP logo. There's embarrassing and then there is just asking for trouble... Someone who can, please fix this ASAP. Human 15:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Glad to see someone fixed it. You're welcome. Human 22:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


How is this comment relevant? Maybe he took a few years off. Maybe he switched majors. Maybe he's working part-time and going to school part time. I'm still in college at 39 - went back to school at 35, got a BA, started grad school right after. Does that make me suspect? This is nonsense and nuts.Take it down. Jacobin 00:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

if its any consolation, i actually do suspect you!!Bohdan
It could be caused by him being held back in elementary, or taking a year off, or any number of things. He was a senior; he would've graduated at 23, which isn't abnormal. As an immigrant, I'm surprised he wasn't older. --Hojimachongtalk 00:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Could we take down the kid's picture? I find it deeply disturbing... *shudder*.-AmesGyo! 00:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe add instead a black ribbon with the "VT" logo? I'll make one.-AmesGyo! 00:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll upload the VTech image. --Hojimachongtalk 00:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it makes a more fitting memorial than the killer's face.-AmesGyo! 00:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
why should the image be removed?I find the whole incident to be deeply disturbing, but he was the main player(for lack of a better word). The commentary on the page seems to be about himBohdan

We need to heal. The assassin's face is just creepy. The VT logo conjures a feeling of solidarity, et al. It's just in better taste, too.-AmesGyo! 00:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

he does look very creepyBohdan
I don't know about you, but having the biggest mass-shooter in the history of the US staring at my face is unsettling. This is to respect the victims and their families. It's pending approval from Andy. --Hojimachongtalk 00:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Psychologist Alice Miller wrote:

  • How should young people be expected to recognize and reject inhumanity and crime if these continue to be disguised instead of being pointed out as plainly as possible? [2] --Ed Poor 00:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
link to the Cho Seung-Hui article.Jaques 00:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

the police still have not mentioned what the killer had on his computer. Will this ever be reported???

What's the relevance here? Does someone know what was on his computer? Aloysius 05:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It's refering to porn. The owner of this sites believes that pornography is the reason this guy killed all those people. And no, I'm not joking. Sureal 06:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

But the tone of the question (and the multiple question marks) suggest that the person who wrote that knows there must have been porn there. How could he have known that? Aloysius 06:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • You can check with your personal Psychologist/Psychiatrist, and if you don't know one, you can search online, or your local mental health organizations. Pornography is a common thread running through disturbed minds, especially the socially maladjusted. Coupled with the other tidbits released in the first several hours, all that has been learned since is pretty commonplace for such people. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no relevance. But comments like this demonstrates why conservapedia is known as "stupidpedia" in some quarters. Dw1237200

  • No relevance in your professional opinion? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
In your professional opinion it is relevant then? Aloysius 08:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Still, it makes it sound as though the police are conspiring to hide information and/or are incompetent. If we were talking a month or three down the line, maybe the tone would be justified, but after a day or two? This is real life, not one o' them CSI teevee shows...--WJThomas 08:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well yes! Less than 36 hours after the biggest mass-shooting in America's history those idiots should have it all wrapped up! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:46, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

What I found interesting was this morning on GMA Diane Sawyer was interviewing a tutor who know the killer and had reported her concerns to police and to the school. DS then asked the tutor, "Why didn't you report this to the parents?"

The tutor replied, "Because policy strictly prevents teachers and concerned professors from contacting the parents."

This is a prime example of liberal ideology at work. Someone please explain to me again why it's good to separate parents from their children? Everwill 12:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal ideology?? Nice try, but when you turn 18 you become an adult and legally your parents don't have to be told about anything you do. Jrssr5 12:30, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Is it part of conservative ideology to report everything you do until your 50? Flippin 12:33, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
At my daughter's school, the student can fill out a form that allows the school to contact the parents if they feel it is needed. As an adult, the student has the ability to withdraw the permission if they choose. Boomcoach 15:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Day 3

"The killer spent most of his time on his laptop." Of course he did, he's in college, virtually every college student spends all their time on a computer. I'm 4 years out and I still am on my (or a) computer for hours at a time (and as it was pointed out to me by a coworker, so are many editors on this site). Jrssr5 13:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Anti-Christian Zealot

In the video he compares himself with Jesus. I certainly wouldn't call him a Christian but he seemed to think he was. Anti-wealthy is more like it from what has been released so far. That makes him a bit left of center to be sure At any rate the "anti-christian" bit on the front page is yet another lie from our esteemed editors. Thanks for working so hard to make this site respectable and trsutworthy Godman 21:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The killer was NOT an anti-Christian zealot (based on the video message at least). The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message if he says that his death will inspire the weak and defenseless JUST AS CHRIST'S DEATH. The message on the main talk page that says he was an anti-Christian zealot is nothing but a blatant lie by the editors of Conservapedia. --Macronking 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I am shocked and amazed at how callous the powers that be on this site are in attempting to turn this tragedy into a political football. Have they no shame, after all of this, have they no shame? Godman 22:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I feel I must add, he may not have been an "anti-Christian zealot", but for him to say "I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire..." is a little off. 1. J.C. did not take 30 odd innocents out on his way to the Cross. 2. J.C. did not commit suicide, he suffered capital punishment. He (the killer) was just deranged, and I feel so sorry for those whose lives he ended or hurt. Human 22:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I would say this: He made a mockery of all that Christianity stands for, but in his mind he was not anti-Christian. Myk 22:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot like some of what happens on this site... Human 00:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
What has been released would tend to conform to Myk's opinion.Godman 22:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

From the referenced article: "He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said." So, no anti-Christian "rage" mentioned and, like the Colombine documents were (correctly) handled, it would do more harm to the victims' families than it would do good to political activists, who should be ashamed of themselves in any event. --Aziraphale 00:59, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I've just got a newspaper here in Melbourne (Australia) that says, "Much of the rant is incoherent and filled with obscenities. He rails against Christianity and the rich." This is a reference to a "1800-word diatribe" that he sent to media in New York (and quoting NBC). Philip J. Rayment 02:50, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Cho committed suicide and murder. He was very angry at someone, possibly his stepfather. He wrote a play reminiscent of Hamlet; note the stepfather accused of murder, the mother remarrying soon after the father is found dead. --Ed Poor 01:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

My 2 cents:
An anti-Christian zealot? Anti-Christian rage is mentioned here:[3]
"A law enforcement official described it Tuesday as a typed eight-page rant against rich kids and religion. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.
'You caused me to do this,' the official quoted the note as saying.
Cho indicated in his letter that the end was near and that there was a deed to be done, the official said. He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said."
That's all I could find. Where is the anti-Christian rage mentioned? What indicates anti-Christian zealotry? Is this really a trustworthy encyclopedia?
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Did you read what I posted just above? Okay, it's only a newspaper so may not be reliable, but it did specifically mention that he "rails against Christianity". Philip J. Rayment 09:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't necessarily make him a zealot. More likely just the incoherent babblings of a deranged mind. If you want news that you can give an anti-Christian zealotry spin you'd probably better off using this
WhatIsG0ing0n 10:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I was responding to your other question, the one that asked "Where is the anti-Christian rage mentioned?". Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I asked where the article cited on the main page[4] mentions anti-Christian rage not some other newspaper.
WhatIsG0ing0n 10:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay. I thought you were claiming that the article you linked didn't have it, and that there was therefore no basis for the claim. I was offering a different basis. Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Recent edits [5] would seem to indicate that Seung-Hui Cho is no longer considered to be an anti-Christian zealot. I eagerly await the next theory as to his motivations.
WhatIsG0ing0n 12:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well now, this is uncomfortable: News reports now have the killer comparing himself to Jesus Christ at His crucifixion--"I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people," he says on the video. And, "Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon a cross and left to bleed to death for your amusement?" Ouch...--WJThomas 13:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

What he said is certainly blasphemous to Christians, but it is by no stretch of the imagination an anti-Christian rant. He says "You just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart and ripping my soul all this time … You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenceless people." I think we ought to have some compassion for his parents as well as the family and friends of the victims. See [6]--Britinme 10:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Lets be Honest about the Virginia Shooting

This kid was a disturbed sociopath. He had mental issues which caused him to believe this was something he should do. Pornography, Video Games, Religion. None of these things CAUSED him to do what he did. Perhaps they gave him ideas, but if these were absent, he still would have done this. And to everyone who keeps saying "There were signs." Of course there were signs. Hindsight is always 20/20 as I have said in a previous page. There "Were signs" about 9/11, but no one noticed until after it happened. Things have to happen before people start to care about the "Signs." Honestly, I just wanna end this stupid discussion and just cry for those that died with my friends.--Elamdri 21:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. Jacobin 22:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Or not a citizen? DanH 01:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

EXCELLENT point Jacobin 01:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


Anyone else find it ironic that a website that is so adamantly opposed to Wikipedia's alleged engagement in frivolous gossip should have a front page devoted entirely to gossip about the Virginia Tech shooter? Anyone? I guess irony is just one of those godless liberal things, huh?--Hektor 22:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

once you realize that this site's owners are promoters and marketeers it makes more sense. Godman 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Encyclopedic Standards?

I'm no big fan of conservapedia, I have this account mainly to make stupid changes. But how can you criticize wikipedia for being unfair/biased to a point of view when your front page has an all-caps celebration of the Supreme Court abortion decision and a note that "our prayers go out to" VA Tech victims? I never heard of a encyclopedia praying, or having an opinion on abortion. If you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone, drop that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tacotank10 (talk)

No. Karajou 00:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As he said, no. DanH 01:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia likes to have its cake, and eat it too. It makes a claim to being unbiased, thus giving it more legitimacy to the unsuspecting user, but then has outright bias in most of its major articles (see e.g. evolution, c.f. homosexuality). I've learned that it's never going to change. You can argue that logic forever but they'll never see it, and if they see it, they won't acknowledge it. For what it's worth though, as a liberal, I think partial birth abortion is pretty awful stuff. That said, this act without a health exception is laaaaaaaame.-AmesGyo! 01:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • "Partial Birth Abortion"? Why not call it what it is; skull crushing. Doesn't that provide a better, more accurate description of the "process"? But, to make it more palatable, euphemism's are invented, and that makes it seem "better", "easier" to discuss. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The legislation calls it "partial birth abortion", a term coined by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Florida); it's already a politicized viewpoint-pushing term, pushing your viewpoint. It was chosen to make it seem worse, not better. --Jtl 04:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • A perfect answer that dovetails nicely with your secular-progressive POV, I am sure. However Conservapedia isn't about moral equivalency, Jtl. If you thought it was, you are indeed in the wrong place. You telling us that the name was "coined" by some Congressman, means little. We are Conservative and Christian friendly. Party means nothing, so you dropping the "R" word just doesn't impress. Here we do indeed have a POV. You thought the name Conservapedia had something to do with fruit? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:01, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
My point was merely that you are, once again, spouting inaccurate pseudo-facts. "Partial birth abortion" is not a euphemism that was invented to make it "more palatable", "better" or "easier to discuss". Does "Conservapedia" mean "inaccuracies don't matter"? --Jtl 05:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Would you forward on Congressman Candy's statement about why he chose that name? Mind, that you are talking to someone who was around D.C. at the time. You have a weird idea this place should be "neutral", and I will say again, you are in the wrong place, expecting that. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:28, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't expect neutral. I hope for accurate, and I'd think you'd hope for that too. Here's how to tell the difference: biased: "skull crushing is a better term"; inaccurate: "partial birth abortion is a euphemism that was invented to make it more palatable, better and easier to discuss". See the difference there? I don't have a statement from Congressman Canady, of course -- congresspeople (on either side) rarely make public statements about how and why they choose their button-pushing terms. See footnote 15 of this article from the Harvard Journal of Legislation for a cite about him inventing the term. And may I ask what your position was in Washington and how one might verify that? I assume per the PalMD case, cited credentials are subject to verification. --Jtl 05:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL. There isn't any such thing as the Palmd "case". And around here, we are not a court, and common sense rules. We don't need some transcript, at least real people don't, to know that politicians would rather use any term other than "skull crushing" to describe a type of abortion. As for politicians "very rarely" talking about who, what, when, where or why, I think a person would have to be leading a sheltered academic life to buy that load. Politico's are faster with their speed dial than a Hollywood starlet. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT) asked for a transcript you now say you didn't need; claim credentials you won't back up; and avoid once again admitting you were just wrong about "partial birth abortion" being a liberal euphemism. Par for the course. --Jtl 15:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I have carefully reviewed this conversation and concluded that TK is currenly shooting a 57 and you are hovering around 84. If you go on like this you might miss the cutBohdan
I came up with similar figures, but I was basing it on Free Throw Percentage Myk 16:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
free throw? is that basketball?Bohdan

Call Me Ishmael?

aha. I KNEW this was the Muslims' fault, somehow. Thanks for showing me the way. This is why I keep comin' back. You guys rock. Jacobin 00:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

you cannot deny the facts. It is odd but he did write it on his arm. I dont think its code for President Bush.Bohdan

Maybe he was a Melville fan. He WAS an English major, after all. Maybe he just liked large aquatic mammals. Mybe, just maybe, he ws $%^&ing NUTS Jacobin 00:48, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

maybe he was a MoslemBohdan

1. He identifies as a Chritstian, I believe. 2. Yeah, there are LOTS of Korean Muslims. Sheeesh. Jacobin 00:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing on his arm said Ismail, not Ishmael. DanH 00:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ismail is the arabic spelling of Ishmael.Jaques 00:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

QFT, Jacobin. An English major with the first line of a major novel on him - a novel that (like most of Melville's work) had hugely CHRISTIAN overtones. I'm not trying to "pin" him on Christians, but as an English major who hadn't flunked out he would HAVE to be aware of the book's symbols. Please, please, will people stop trying to use this guy for their agenda? It would hurt in any event, but the size of the shoehorn you're having to employ is uncomfortable to look at. --Aziraphale 00:53, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

what means "QTF"?Bohdan

QFT???? Sorry - I ain't that hip. Meaning, please?Jacobin 00:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. "Quote For Truth," usually a shorthand for "consider this a paste of everything you just said because it was entirely correct and was well said." --Aziraphale 01:00, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • blush* nicest thing anyone has said to this radical all day. Jacobin 01:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
"consider this a paste of everything you just said because it was entirely correct and was well said." = "QTF" Thats some shorthand!Bohdan
Best kind of shorthand - really short! :D Anyway, yah: Quote For Truth; spread the word! --Aziraphale 01:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Not only did the killer write Ishmail on his arm (and thanks for explaining that spelling!), but he also wrote in on the package he sent to NBC. Note, by the way, that the killer's 8-page typed manifesto has not been published but press reports do contain leaks that the manifesto has complaints about Christianity. The public should demand a release of that writing. By the way, I didn't say he was Muslim, but it is clear he was anti-Christian.--Aschlafly 01:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Hi, Andy. Last thing's first - I don't think anybody read it as you saying he was Muslim; that was... *looks up* Bohdan. So, sorry if you felt dinged for that, t'weren't you.
That said, if he did write "Call me Ishmail" rather than just "Ishmail," he was actually making a reference that is, if anything, Christian. Melville's work is filled with Christian symbolism, and it's not even SUBTLE symbolism. (A guy with the initials "J.C." who is kind to his shipmates and gets crucified for his troubles?) As I said before, whatever else this guy was, he was an English major who had at least passed his classes, and Moby Dick is pretty rudimentary on any English syllabus.
Again, to be clear, I'm not (and I don't think anybody else here so far is) trying to "hang" this on Christianity. I'm a Christian myself, although as a Presbyterian I know I'm considered pretty milquetoast by a lot of people here. :p Nevertheless, he'd be better characterized as "misguided Christian," or "mistaken Christian," or as someone else said, "crazy."
I know in these tendentious times we can feel like we have to go on the offensive to avoid being on the defensive, but I think this is a lot of energy you're spending to tag this guy that could be more efficiently spent fighting other fights. He committed great evil, and in all likelihood he'll be paying the price for it (even Presbyterians aren't that loose with the insanity defense in Heaven). As off-kilter as he was, though, I don't think it begets anything valuable to try to peg his beliefs; they weren't well-reasoned in any case. --Aziraphale 02:28, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

For the record, i never said he was a moslem either. i was simply answering a question. its possible he was a moslem. Its also possible he was an pagan!Bohdan

Apologies, Bohdan, you're absolutely right. It also remains possible, of course, that he was a Christian. Let's not forget that we're capable of evil, too. I'm not praying for that outcome, but I can't help but cringe a little when there's an automatic assumption that bad deeds have to be "the other guys."
And just so nobody else feels compelled to add it: yes, I also cringe when mealy-mouthers automatically assume that good deeds couldn't be "us guys." That particular knife definitely cuts both ways. --Aziraphale 02:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I seriously doubt he was a Christian. how could he be?Bohdan 02:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Um. Really? You do understand that being a Christian doesn't actually modify you? It provides a path, and it sets rules, and... well, being a Christian means a whole host of things, and I don't want to completely hijack the thread. But, from a strange perspective it could almost be said that the point of being human is to sin; why else would we need forgiveness? And once you've got your head around the fact that humans, even Christian humans, are sinners, why would we then look at someone who has sinned, even when the sin is as egregious as this was, and think "ah, clearly he wasn't a Christian!"
We can note how far he has fallen from the path, how poorly he might have been educated about his religion, we can even ponder his punishment. But there's nothing in his actions that we know about (although Andy is talking about media leaks; I haven't seen those sooo... *shrug* dunno) that automatically disqualify him from possibly being Christian.
YET ANOTHER CAVEAT: Before anybody else feels compelled to say it: he could also be Muslim, or pagan, or Buddhist, or an atheist, or whatever else. I make no claims to know; I think the "Call me Ishmail" thing is indicative, but it proves nothing. --Aziraphale 02:48, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
He didn't write "call me Ishmail", he wrote "Ismail Ax", so he wasn't quoting Moby Dick, but rather referencing a story in the Quran.

Jaques 03:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I understand that being a Christian does not modify you, but indeed most Christians who are actually serious about their faith try to act in a way pleasing to God. Obviously all commit sin including Christians, but this sort of crime just seems like something a serious, real, believing Christian would be reluctant to do, no? Also, Paul addresses the "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" issue. He could have been a Christian, but given what i have heard about him, that seems sadly unlikely.Bohdan 02:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey Bohdan. I understand exactly what you're grappling with, but I can't go along with where you lead. Sure, it "seems like" he'd be "reluctant" to do it. Now, add in brain damage, trauma, or some form of psychosis. Heck, add in hard drugs or alcohol. See what I mean? For his sake (as hard as that is to think about, with his victims fresh in our minds) I really hope he WAS Christian since, as TK says below, there's hope even for him.
I guess I get riled up by the constant team-picking that seems to go on. "Person A is <some bad thing>, clearly he's on the other side. Person B is <some good thing>, she must be this side." We got some bad'uns, they got some good'uns, and vice versa. --Aziraphale 03:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess. But, like I said "unlikey" but not out of the question. True, we do have some bad ones. But I like to think they have mor bad ones than we.Bohdan
  • I pray, if he wasn't, he accepted Jesus and asked his forgiveness as he shot himself. The love of the Sacred Heart embraces even him.--~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

alas, you have a good point.Bohdan

Mark my words, it is going to come out that Cho Seung-Hui was a regular consumer of artificially sweetened beverages. Just wait and see. All of these campus killers were. Dpbsmith 06:09, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Is that a joke, dpb? Mr. Selfreferential, 26:15, 1 April 2018
Ya think? Dpbsmith 06:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

He used the Christian spelling in the package he sent to NBC plus he likened himself to Jesus. Seems pretty obvious he was Christian, doesn't it? AL 14:27, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

He said "Jesus was crucifying me."[7] Enough said.--Aschlafly 19:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ishmael is not the patriarch of Islam. Abraham, the father of Ishmael, is the patriarch. ColinRtalk 00:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I really, really, wonder what Jesus would have said about your pharisaic childish wish to be the first to make some gain out of this massaker. I really wonder. I had a cristian education and from that i guess that the appropriate reaction for a true follower of Christ would not be childish hate or jugdment without forgiveness and even before knowing the facts. As a matter of fact, religios symboils in one or the other way play an significant role in many of the rampage shootings or people going mad. To build an argument from that is strange to the highest degree --Stitch75 04:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Differences from Wikipedia

Article about the differences between Wikipedia and Concervapedia states the following:

5. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.

6. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.

Mayby these two should be removed from the article. As during the last few days frontpage has been full of gossip and speculation based on articles by diffrent news papers and opinnions of journalists. Timppeli 14:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no gossip on the front page or anywhere else here. Nor are any "opinions" of journalists portrayed as facts here.--Aschlafly 17:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Even now there is an sentence on the frontpage saying: "The Virginia Tech killer hated America. See column here" and the link is to an press article that speculates what the things the killer said might have meant. Not to speak of all the talk about the killer being anti-Christian zealot or before that about his alleged porn addiction and how that could have caused him to flip. Where those the official outcome of some investigation, or just opinnions made from diffrent things read from media? Timppeli 17:33, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The statements on the front page are supported. The statement about porn was opinion on a talk page, which I am confident will also be proven true. The investigators are withholding all the information they have, and their censorship is not going to affect us here. The investigators even complained about NBC releasing information!--Aschlafly 19:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Wait. We've printed it on our front page because you are confident it will be proven true at some point in the future? That's slightly... unreliable, no offense. GofG ||| Talk 19:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Im not going to argue how well the statements are supported, because the whole point was that they are supported by news articles. From which then conclusions are made or the opinnion of the reporter is posted. And i just gave an clear example of it on the previous comment. And im actually just fine with that, but i don't think there should be claims like: "6. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion." On the Conservapedia when this clearly happens here too. But as i think it would be too much for anyone to admit it here, ill just leave it be with this comment. Timppeli 19:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)\
Which factual claim do you deny?--Aschlafly 19:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Ecce homo Human 20:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
You are missing the point, ill quote myself: "Im not going to argue how well the statements are supported". My point was that the "facts" are gathered from news papers, TV news and such while "6. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion." clearly states it shouldn't be the case here. I even gave an direct example of this: The Virginia Tech killer hated America. See column here. I don't know how one can deny that this isn't an opinnion of an journalist. There is claim: "Virginia Tech killer hated America" and then there is a link to an article by an journalist. Can it be any simpler? On the article the writer speculates what motivated the killer, is he right or wrong makes little diffrence to the point im trying to make. Would allso like to say that the motives of the murderer will most likely be under debate for a very long time still. He seamed very incoherent so there is lots a room for speculation. Saying anything sure about his motives at this time is premature. Was planning to make the previous one my final comment to this thread as i dont see this leading to anything, but lets see if i can keep my promise this time Timppeli 20:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)