Talk:Main Page/archive55

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The liberal mind

An article about the liberal mind, very nice. Thiudareiks 14:30, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

This should be on the Front Page! Thanks for finding it, Thiudareiks. --₮K/Talk 19:25, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Ahem, rate their OWN mental health. Maybe they just wouldn't admit to mental problems. There was a study that showed vast discrepancies in the SAT scores between the two groups. Have a look for it, I cannot find it anywhere, and I have no idea what a good SAT score is, being a UKer. --Revilo314 05:44, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Suggested split in news

The news section currently contains a lot of Conservapedia specific news, mostly about who is linking to the atheism article and how it is ranking on several search engines. It seems to me that these are slightly strange in a section called "In the news". Perhaps this section could be split into a section "In the news", which deals with general news, and a section "Conservapedia developments", which could list search engine rankings, new external links to conservapedia, interesting recent additions (both new articles and significant expansions and rewrites of existing ones) and conservapedia contests. Opinions? HermanH 17:25, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that's a great idea - these are two different categories of information. --DinsdaleP 09:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Obama's Patriotism?

The current news item references Obama's accepting anti-American donations, but neither the linked article nor CP's Obama article mentions same. Could you point me to more information on the subject? Maybe this should be part of the Obama article.--RossC 22:08, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

CP's Obama entry clearly states that Obama is the favorite of "", an anti-war and anti-American-military-leadership fundraising machine that ran a full-page ad in the New York Times smearing General Petraeus. More citations on how anti-Americans have bankrolled Obama's campaign are welcome.--Aschlafly 22:22, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, okay. I missed the bit about MoveOn, having skipped down to the section on his campaign and the donations to same. Thank you.--RossC 08:26, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't think it can be objectively said that MoveOn is unpatriotic. They want America to succeed; they just have a different way of bringing it about. I think Bush is wrecking America, personally, but I'd never call him unpatriotic. He just has a different vision. Not a very good one... but... I think we all love America here. Let's not toss around pointless attacks at our politicians.-Historian 22:40, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Although, I'll be the first liberal to say, that "General Betray-us" ad was absolutely uncalled for, and they were rightly criticized for it.-Historian 22:40, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, Historian, I would call Bush unpatriotic. Bush and his cronies are economically strip-mining America and tried to turn it into the world's most heavily-armed banana republic. If that's not unpatriotic, I don't know what is. --Gulik5 22:56, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

It's hardly appropriate to claim that the people who donated money to Obama's campaign are "anti-American", is it? Certainly they may be anti-Republican, but there's no suggestion whatsoever that he - or his supporters - have ANY interest in dissolving the Union. Conservatives can be very confident that if - and I say IF - Obama were to win the election, the State of the Union speech would still contain the words "the State of this Union is strong". Billabong 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

For the record, the filthy peacenik hippies at may not be CP's kind of Americans, but at least, unlike some of John McCain's Contributors, they're actual American citizens. --Gulik5 22:56, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Also, I don't think I've ever met a liberal who didn't like America. If we didn't like America, we wouldn't participate in politics and try to help it.-Historian 23:01, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Finally, also, it is - after all - America that he wants to run, not some other country! Billabong 23:10, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
The ideology of Obama and his contributors his harmful to America's freedom and our Constitutional liberties. So they are "anti-American." --Steve 19:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Old News

Seeing that picture of Obama on the Main Page again, it was like "Deja Vu: is this some copy of an old news page?" That reminded me of the saying that you only need one newspaper every eight years or so and you'll still get the same idea. "Unrest in the Mid-east, Pope denounces violence, Shooting at public school, U.S. government oppresses Christians." This is just an observation I had that probably isn't helpful to anyone else. --Steve 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Well put, Steve, and you've explained why I rarely bother reading newspapers anymore. But as to the picture of Obama, I suspect you'll be seeing that one a few more times before the campaign is over, and not just from this site!--Aschlafly 18:56, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Someone should point out that Obama is singing in that picture, not just standing around. --User:fred 19:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Obama's singing ... with his mouth closed??? Obama supporters sure are gullible.--Aschlafly 19:05, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, typically, when someone is speaking/singing their mouth opens, then closes, then opens again, closes again, and so on until they finish whatever they're saying. This picture, being a still photo, only shows the "closed" part of the process. There's a video of the event, and it's clear on the video that Obama is singing along (unlike the other candidates).--RossC 19:32, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
And next you're going to tell me that he doesn't wear an American flag on his lapel because the store ran out of selling them? Listen, nobody's fooled here. Obama is the anti-patriotic candidate of, and is raising big money from not wearing the American flag and not appearing patriotic. If you like that, then vote for him, but don't pretend he's pro-American flag while he's raising money being anti-American flag.--Aschlafly 19:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
A) Obama is not wearing an American flag lapel pin, but it's not like he's wearing a hammer and sickle on his lapel. B) "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." C) Your statement above just called over three million Americans unpatriotic and anti-American. D) If you define patriotism as blindly supporting your country right or wrong, then yes, Obama is unpatriotic. But that's not exactly a good thing. If a government or country must get oj the right track, it must listen to dissidence or, by your definition, unpatriotic individuals. Lyra Belaqua talk 21:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm wondering why people are even questioning a person's loyalty when they don't adorn themselves with cheap accouterments. I'd like to think a person's patriotism should be determined by their actions and words; not cheap costume jewelry that is most likely manufactured in China. The only lapel pins I have ever worn were U.S. insignias as part of my Air Force service dress uniform. Does this mean I am unpatriotic? What's truly ridiculous are self-righteous political hacks like Sean Hannity that criticize Obama for not wearing a flag pin, yet they don't wear one themselves many times. Is that hypocrisy or are they only patriotic on a part-time basis? [1] --Jimmy 21:56, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think the photo is misleading and constitutes placement bias AdenJ 01:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree Jimmy. My wife is a US citizen and is very proud of that fact. She came to the UK after her divorce in 2000, where I met her. Every July 4 she wears a US flag pin. Just because she doesn't wear it the other 364 days of the year doesn't make her any less patriotic. Darkmind1970 07:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)


On the Iran news item... the word allies links to the Allied powers of the world wars. We certainly have not carried along that same exact coalition for sixty years. We have many more allies in the world, or perhaps some would say fewer. Rockthecasbah 20:01, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point, and I'll change it, though England was America's strongest ally then and now.--Aschlafly 20:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Where does Australia fit in there??? Philip J. Rayment 05:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
What happened to Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland? --KimSell 07:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)


The latest headline confused me; i thought an ad relating to abortion was for it, not against it. Very puzzleing until I clicked the link. --Steve 18:26, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Fixed it yesterday. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

St. John's

You're speaking at St. John's this weekend - where and when is this? Is it public?ArcturusM 23:06, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Was the Drew talk by invitation only? If not, why aren't the details being published beforehand? Since these talks are being mentioned in the News section, it would also be appropriate to mention the names of the groups sponsoring them, and the principal themes/topics of the presentations. --DinsdaleP 23:58, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
At my college these sorts of things were public. Could outsiders attend?-ArcturusM 00:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
My preference is for public attendance, but I'm not yet confident that all the colleges want that. For the talk at Drew last night, students filled a room and there was no one from outside the college. I did not know the room number beforehand.
I'm sure that for security/logistical reasons it makes sense for the details of small-group talks hosted by student organizations to be left out until afterward. I'd like to suggest that afterward, though, the news items acknowledge the hosts; "Thanks to the X organization at Y University for hosting a talk on Z by Conservapedian ASchafley." --DinsdaleP 21:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I'll ask about St. John's. Each college probably has its own rules.
As to posting the information anyway, students at these colleges visit Conservapedia and they deserve acknowledgment and welcome, and I do hope that some of these events will be opened up to the public.--Aschlafly 09:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! Will you let us know when you find out please?-ArcturusM 09:57, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Obscure blogs

Why are obscure poorly written blogs making it to the news section of this encyclopedia? I am talking about the slaying the goliath blog. --Effbeeayi 08:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't follow this comment, but sometimes blogs have news and/or insight.--Aschlafly 09:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

African-American category

Maybe I missed the discussion on another page, but I notice that you're removing this category, Mr. Schlafly. I was curious as to why?--TomMoore 19:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

It would be better if you go to Category talk:African Americans (or even User talk:Aschlafly). This is the main page discussion page for dicussing, you know, the main page.HenryS 19:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
No, no need to thank me. HenryS 19:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't see your comment here. After I posted the above, I checked the Recent Changes, and found the discussion. Thank you, though :) --TomMoore 23:16, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia isn't a mobocracy and as long as I have been here, only since last March, policy decisions such as the category have never been a matter of editor vote, etc. So perhaps I misunderstand the original question? --₮K/Talk 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I asked a question, buckaroo. We little peons might not have your shirt, but we still want such information handed down to us so we know the reasoning and can take future appropriate action, without unwittingly contradicting a new policy.--TomMoore 23:16, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
As I read it, he asked a question for clarification... Why must you approach everything with such hostility and always assume bad faith... At the risk of being labeled a troll, your blood pressure would drop several points if you would relax a little Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 23:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Spot on, brother.--TomMoore 23:16, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, "Doctor" but I fail to spot hostility, merely asking for clarification. This isn't some new policy, a new editor created a category (as I understand it), and it has been policy for some time now that editors don't create categories without asking an admin first. TomMoore, putting posts out of order confuses the context, by the way.--₮K/Talk 08:13, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Note that I am now replying to you, TK. I am replying some time after your comment, so chronologically, this should go on the bottom. But since that would make this unreadable, naturally it should instead be put in context. As PJR has pointed out, that would be after the post to which it is replying. Thus, here. This is the essential difference between chronology and context.
It sure does seem like you were hostile, incidentally, enough so that someone entirely uninvolved felt moved to note it. Perhaps you should reread your posts before you save them and make sure that they don't require tone of voice to get across your message? It's a fairly common problem on the Internet.--TomMoore 23:30, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
The post you moved was in context, i.e. after the post that it was replying to, so I have put it back there. Where is this policy that editors don't create categories without asking an admin first, documented? Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

No, it was not. Posts out of chronological order, can easily be over-looked and mislead. So, logically, (not Wikipedia-way) posts should remain in context by being presented in time line. As for documentation, I have read many posts from Sysops to editors stating so about the categories. And it was decided, Andy agreeing, in a sysop discussion, Philip, but I don't think your memory is really that bad. Not everything is documented, like changes to the Commandments & the Guidelines, are they? You are overly pedantic by self-admission. Please honor my request, my demand, that matters concerning CP policy, while I was a sysop, be addressed only by email. Thanks. --₮K/Talk 09:41, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Posts are frequently added after the post they are replying to, rather than at the end of all posts. Putting them in chronological order is not the same as putting them in context. The point of my question about the categories policy was not to ask who decided it, but to question how users are supposed to know about said policy if it's not posted somewhere. You are not in a position to "demand" that I only address such matters by e-mail. If I wish to ask here, that is my prerogative. If you wish to reply by e-mail, then you know how to do that. Philip J. Rayment 10:38, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Scientific America review

Scientific America has done a not so glorious review of expelled if anyone is interested... [2] AdenJ 16:39, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

That review is a pack of lies. Case in point: Richard Sternberg, on whose case Expelled dwells at some length, as well it might. The SA reviewer conveniently:
  1. Gets Sternberg's name wrong, calling him "Robert" instead of "Richard"
  2. Fails to mention that Sternberg filed an official discrimination complaint.
  3. Fails to mention that Sternberg's case officer told him that the reaction to his publishing an Intelligent Design article was "worse than [he] imagined," and then—the kicker—
  4. Fails to mention that the un-worthies at the Smithsonian Institution consulted with the National Center for Science Education, a fact that NCSE Executive Directrix Eugenie Scott not only admits, but avows.--TerryHTalk 19:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Terry, point 1 is a typo. If we're going to judge on typos, about 1/2 of this website should be torn down right now. Points 2-4 don't go to the merits of Sternberg's complaint. He can file a complaint, get advice from a "case officer" (who's paid to tell him his complaint is valid!), and his opponents can get advice from interest groups (which we'd expect), but none of that makes his case any more meritorious. Sorry, but your objects are spurious.-Lyther 19:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

You lost credibility with your first two sentences. "Robert" is not a "typo" for "Richard". That mistake shows that the author is clueless about the person he is writing about. When that person is the main point of the essay, it shouldn't be taken seriously. I challenge you to find that kind of mistake about the subject of an important entry here. I doubt you can, even though we don't have paid editors like SA.
Richard Sternberg is far better trained and more scientific than his critics. He has two Ph.D's, while most of his critics are hucksters like Richard Dawkins who can't even be accurate on his own resume.--Aschlafly 20:37, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

You really have it in for Dawkins dont you Aschlafly. I fail to see why his resume is A) Anyones business except for potential employers and B) The be all end all. I personally dont like Richard Dawkins (having tried and failed to read two of his books) and think he is a self-serving and arrogant person however not liking him and accusing him and Oxford university of lying about his professorship are differant issues. Regardless of the name mistake in the SA article it is still very damning on the veracity of Expelled. AdenJ 20:53, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, Dawkins posts his incorrect resume online. It is Dawkins who makes it the interest of the public. If someone is not correct in his own resume, then don't expect him to be correct about anything else.--Aschlafly 21:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
How does the second PhD make Sternberg "more scientific"? Which critics is he far better trained than? Murray 21:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Most promoters of evolution and censors of ID are less qualified than Sternberg. I doubt any of them hold two Ph.D's, and few are capable of the extraordinarily high quality of work and presentations that Sternberg gives. I encourage you to attend one of his talks. I have and found them to be at the highest intellectual level.--Aschlafly 21:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that is a matter of opinion Aschlafly (your statement about Sternberg). P.S. I have seen you make incorrect statements before so does that mean you are not correct about anything either? AdenJ 21:48, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is lacking. You don't cite any incorrect statements by me (which remain uncorrected even after an error is identified), and it appears you are just trying to distract attention from the issue before us. I'll add that to liberal tricks.--Aschlafly 21:54, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

You have just made one Andy. You have incorrectly labeled me a liberal or at least accused me of using liberal tricks which I might add, is a made up list from your own head anyway. AdenJ 21:59, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know who Sternberg's critics are, so I don't know how to check how many PhDs they may have, but my question was how the second PhD makes Sternberg "more scientific". I was simply asking for clarification of the logic. According to the CV on his website Sternberg has less than 30 publications in the last 15 years that were peer-reviewed in the usual sense (ie, excluding books), so his productivity is rather pedestrian. Murray 12:23, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Murray, your statement that you "don't know who Sternberg's critics are" is an example of deliberate ignorance. In less than one minute I found on the internet several critics of Sternberg, such as Nick Matzke. His credentials? He holds a masters degree in geology and is trying to obtain a doctorate, as of last fall. In general, the promoters of evolution have credentials inferior to Sternberg's. Feign deliberate ignorance all you like, but simple use of Google confirms it.
Are two home runs better than one, and indicate a better home run hitter? I'd say so, and so would any objective observer. Ditto for 2 Ph.D's.--Aschlafly 12:42, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Andy, I googled as well, and couldn't find much. Sorry to refute your assumption. I said nothing at all about whether those critics have 2 PhDs. There probably are relatively few. But that has little to do with my point. I see your Nick Matzke and raise you one Phillip Johnson. We could go back and forth about the pro- and anti-ID people's credentials, to no purpose. I asked how 2 PhDs makes Sternberg himself more scientific, because I was curious as to the logic of that. Generally, it may or may not indicate superior training. Sternberg's limited productivity suggests it doesn't. But thank you for the clarification. Murray 13:11, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Murray, Richard Sternberg's critics plainly have inferior credentials. The more you engage in liberal denial of that obvious fact, the less credibility you have. Suit yourself.--Aschlafly 13:44, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Andrew, perhaps the term you're looking for is more like 'less qualified' or 'less decorated'. Clearly Murray is confused about the term 'scientific', and the way someone could be more or less scientific. The term has two definitions, the first being having to do with science, and the second being the quality of being derived from science. So, the question is, how can someone be more to do with science, OR, how can someone be more derived from science? Seeing as how you can't be ether, (you ether have something to do with science, or you do not, there isn't a middle ground on which to build a gradient of relations, and the same goes for the second definition of the word.) --BlotchesRepent 02:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

TerryH, the Scientific American Review pointed out objective issues with Sternberg's qualifications for tenure, such as poor grant production, the low number of students under his supervision attaining their degrees, and a relatively low number of original, peer-reviewed submissions to journals. Your points at the top of this section do not address those issues, which are much more material to why he was denied tenure than any prejudice against his views on evolution. --DinsdaleP 12:52, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

If Intelligent design is a scientific theory, I am Elvis Presley. --Maayan 09:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Why are you falsely claiming to be Elvis Presley?
Scientific American is guilty of much of what it criticised the film for, such as over-simplifying Sternberg's case.
Philip J. Rayment 23:52, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Sweet Medallion thing

I like the spinning, Conservapedia symbol on the Main Page! Why is it in the News section, though? --Steve 22:01, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

It's great, isn't it? Thank ChrisS.
As to placement, it seems to attract attention to the news section for now. Can you suggest a better home longterm for it?--Aschlafly 22:08, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks great! Is there a reason that the letters are the same color as the background though? In the logo in the top left, the letters are white, which makes the text somewhat easier to read. HermanH 06:21, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Both versions look good to me, though your point is well taken.--Aschlafly 09:47, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Neat! Flag on the obverse is backwards, though--blue field should always be at the top left as seen by the intended viewer.--RossC 12:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually the Conservapedia logo in general is in violation of Section 8(g) of the US Flag Code [3]. Stop disrespecting the flag. DaBoss3 00:18, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
This could become Conservapedia's big U.S. Supreme Court case, testing the First Amendment!--Aschlafly 11:29, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Victim of Beating to be Homeschooled

The headline states that the girl was "viciously beaten in a public school," but the accompanying source clearly says the victim was attacked "when she arrived at a friend's home." If the goal here is to disparage public schools and their students, perhaps the headline should be rewritten to say that all of the attackers attended public school? Of course, there's nothing in the source the explicitly states that either, but a headline that lacks direct support from its source is still preferential to a headline that's directly contradicted by it, right? Cua1101 15:11, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

First, the kids involved knew each other; the victim did drive on her own to the perpetrator's house. That alone implies they also went to school together. Second, the beating was vicious as well as savage. You don't go to a friend's home (yes, by going there she thought they were friends as well) and expect to be beaten to within an inch of your life just because your "friends" like the idea of filming it for the YouTube block party. The headline stays the way it is. Karajou 16:16, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Just because the article says she was beaten "in a public school" should not be read to mean that the author meant she was beaten "in a public school". Taking things literally is just a Liberal Trick used to smear good honest conservatives. Why do you hate freedom? --KimSell 16:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Changed to the fact that she was beaten in a home, which is exactly the case. Karajou 16:29, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

60 Minutes and Trickery

If the subject of the story was guilty then why, after several years of questioning and evidence-gathering by the USA, was he released to the German government instead of going through a military tribunal and being convicted? If he was innocent then justice was done (late), and if he wasn't then the fault is the government's for letting him go, not 60 Minutes for reporting the story. --DinsdaleP 01:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Cell Phone Kid

Yay for the school! I am a high school science teacher and I detest cell phones in lessons. It is my policy that if I even SEE a phone in one of my lessons, I will take it and will only return it to the child's parents when they come and get it themselves. Before classes learn my policy, cell phones can be horribly disruptive, especially now they are all purpose multimedia devices. Nobody has ever actually accepted an incoming call in my lessons (there have been a couple of examples where someone had their phone ring and quickly silenced it) but if they did I would hope that the school would at least give the kid internal suspension. The fact that a kid is "prettty stressed" and wants to talk to his best friend is NOT a good reason to disrupt the learning of 28 other kids. Remember the days when we didnt have mobile phones? People seemed to get along pretty well waiting until the end of the day before they spoke to someone, didnt they? Further, the article linked says that half the students at that school have parents in the forces. Imagine what would happen if half the class were accepting calls during lessons. Not only would it mean no learning was taking place, but in many lessons (science, woodwork) it would be a safety hazrd. --KimSell 06:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I would agree with that; cell phones are a big distraction, but in this case it should have been worked out to where the kid simply got a warning. They forgot about the fact that it's the American soldier who ensures that those teachers have a job. Karajou 07:14, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
But, the fact is this: The school has a no cell phones policy. That is no cell phones at all. The kid in question not only HAD a cell phone, but disrupted a lesson by taking a call. The rules call for a suspension, and so he was suspended. Once again, I have to suggest that you imagine what happens if half the class accepts a call during lessons. A suspension was fair. --KimSell 07:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Given the circumstances a suspension does seem unfair, however perhaps it would have been better if the kid had asked the teacher if he could take the call earlier, that way he wouldn't have been disrupting the class or breaching the school policy. But how on earth do American soldiers ensure teachers have jobs? It's hardly Iraq invading America, and even if there were ten terror attacks a month on US soil as a direct result of Iraq (compared to one which was very weakly linked to the country) then teachers would still be in jobs... Stoney 07:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
It's the American teacher who ensures those soldiers have a job. A "double dicho," as the Cubans say.--TomMoore 12:59, 13 April 2008 (EDT)


I'm happy to hear the news that learn together has been promoted to Sysop. I hope you don't mind me asking, but how do you became a Sysop? Chippeterson 11:17, 13 April 2008.

By contributing to this encyclopedia. Quality counts for more than quantity. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I need a sysop to delete Roderick Miller, it was copied a while ago from wikipedia, also can a sysop put Nancy Reagan in the Category:First Ladies -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that the author of the Roderick Miller entry here also wrote it on Wikipedia, which is acceptable. I added the cat to Nancy Reagan as requested.--Aschlafly 11:28, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

St. Johns

I just noticed that apparently two people were blocked forever, based on what I felt was a valid question. Part of me wants to ask it now, but another part is somewhat intimidated. I'll just risk it.

The current "In the News" is somewhat vague in my eyes: "Conservapedia presents at St. John's tonight." - Does this mean that all sysops will be there? Some? Will they present Conservapedia to the masses? Why will they be there? What will they do or say? For main page news, it's not terribly helpful. Please don't ban me... --MilesM 15:13, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

It wasn't two people, it was one, who was banned in the past for repeated trolling, lying, harassment, and other garbage. Karajou 15:16, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
And why did you revert the post? And do you have the information I am interested in? Will you be there? --MilesM 15:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Will you be there? Karajou 15:24, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, I definitely won't be there if the location will just be "St. John's". That's just marginally better than "Meet me at that Starbucks in NYC!" unless there will be huge "CONSERVAPEDIANS COME HERE" banners at St. John's. ;) --MilesM 15:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
And how would you be coming? Cheshire, England isn't a walk around the block, is it? Karajou 15:29, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
What tool told you that I'm in England? Might be time for a refund. But on principle, I don't quite appreciate you attempting to post private information. Also, I never said that I would attend, but rather that I wouldn't have the chance of attending anyway, given how the "news" post omits any sort of usable info. --MilesM 15:35, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I would actually like to go. I'm a New Yorker, not a "troll," and interested. Please let me know.-Madison 16:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

If this is open to the public, then I'd also like the time/location since I could be there if I have this info in advance. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 17:08, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

In general I think it'd wouldn't hurt to add a little more detail to the headline (it can still be concise). But that's just my suggestion, based on the comments here - you (obviously) can disclose as much or as little information as you like. :) Feebasfactor 20:14, 13 April 2008 (EDT) I would have liked to attend. I'm disappointed that no information was provided. Maybe next time, please? I understand there are more events scheduled.-Exp 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Good suggestion, but please recognize that Conservapedia is a guest at these college events and as a guest Conservapedia cannot invite attendance by people outside the college. That is up to the college sponsors whether and how to open these events to the general public. There will be more of them, and Conservapedia itself may have a public event this spring that it can open to anyone.--Aschlafly 12:23, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Very good point. Next time, do you think you could ask the organization, though, and maybe they'd be happy for the extra publicity/notice a public opening would give them? When I was in college, most student groups were open to outsiders in small groups, at least. Fingers crossed, and thank you for taking note!-Exp 15:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Differences Between Europe and the U.S (news)

That was an interesting article, but it didn't even show how deep anti-americanism runs there.Most europeans think bush is some sort of monkey and that americans in general are ignorant people who bicker over the tiniest point of religion,and are slaves of th media and various corporations. I may be blunt but I'm also honest.PirateBay 17:34, 13 April 2008 (EDT) P.S This page needs to be archived, or so the top of the editing window tells me.PirateBay 17:34, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Some questions

Would like to make two fast questions, firstly why there is so many news items about invidual conservapedia article atheism and it\'s ranking in search engines? There are 20 000+ articles on this encyclopedia, going to post the rankings of those rest too? Secondly im curious about the news item that states: "Conservapedia presents at St. John's tonight." That dosn't really tell a lot what is going to happen, where and by who exactly? Thanks in advance Adamy 18:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

About the second part: This isn't going to end well. See a bit further up, the "St. Johns" section. But I am also curious about the first part, mostly because search engine rankings should take a back seat to good (and open!) content. "If you build it, they will come." --MilesM 18:56, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Huh. Now you see it, now you don't! --MilesM 19:04, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah, sorry, didn't notice it had been asked allready, hopefully some one will be able to clarify that news item a bit. Adamy 19:07, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Who put the spinning logo on the main page? That version of it was not the finished product... ~Chris Svendsen

Mr. Schlafly put it on the main page. You should post the finished one when you're done! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 10:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Chris, time's a-wasting! The future is now. Your logo is spectacular but was just gathering dust for two months. Improvements are welcome, and let's move forward. Thanks.--Aschlafly 12:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Style / Obama

Ya' know...when you refer to Senator Obama as "Professor" (in quotes) Obama, you're engaging in mockery. When you do it on three successive news items about Obama, you're knee-deep in item #22 in liberal style, over-reliance on mockery....--RossC 13:56, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Given that Obama has described himself that way, I would not call this an "over-reliance" on mockery.--Aschlafly 14:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
When you put Professor in quotes, you're mocking him (making fun of his claim to be a professor). When you do it three times in a row, you're over-doing it (over-reliance, the joke is old).--RossC 14:47, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Again, he referred to himself that way during the campaign, and never retracted it. That's the title he gave himself, so I don't see any basis for complaint. His supporters have even defended his claim to the title of "professor". If and when the title is retracted, then you might have a point.--Aschlafly 16:05, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but you know he's not a professor, so when you call him "professor"--particularly when you put quotes around it to indicate you're being ironic/sarcastic--you're mocking him.--RossC 16:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I have to agree with RossC here, that's unacceptable. We should be above that. DM 19:18, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
According to the University of Chicago Law School, Obama was a professor for 12 years from 1992 to 2004. Saying he awarded the title to himself and using quotes is not only insulting, but incorrect. [4]--Jimmy 19:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, the media relations department at a university cannot redefine the meaning of words like "professor". If the University of Chicago called Obama a professor then I would put its claim in quotes also.--Aschlafly 19:59, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I'd hope that Conservapedia would always set a high standard for the students who use it, and in this case Obama should be referred to in news postings by his current title, Senator Obama. Americans need to respect the office an elected official holds even when they don't respect the person serving in it. --DinsdaleP 20:59, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Obama is not cited on the main page for performing any senatorial duties, and it would be misleading to imply that he is.--Aschlafly 21:19, 14 April 2008 (EDT)--Aschlafly 21:19, 14 April 2008 (EDT)--Aschlafly 21:19, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Obama is a current U.S. Senator, and regardless of whether a news story is about his campaigning or his actions as a senator, it is more misleading to refer to him as Professor Obama than Senator Obama. I'm asking that you set the right standards for the students who use Conservapedia, and show by example that CP is above taking cheap shots like this. --DinsdaleP 21:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
First of all, you don't sound sorry at all when you take cheap shots at Obama. Where do you get the idea that the media relations department is redefining the word "professor"? If I'm allowed an opinion, you are the one making the misleading statements about professorships, it seems no one is a professor unless they pass the Aschlafly standards. --Jimmy 22:21, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Look up "professor" in the dictionary if you don't know what it means. Public relations can't redefine it. Obama's campaign has nothing to do with being a senator. He's not raising money from it; he's not running based on his achievements as senator; and his supporters don't back him because he's a senator. Instead, they support him because he's a "professor", as Obama himself bragged to have been.--Aschlafly 22:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I'll pass on even trying to address comments like that (plus I'm still working on getting out of 90/10 violation). In the words of my wise Grandfather, though; "If you want respect, you have to be the bigger person and show respect first". Conservapedia can be better than this, but it's your Wiki. --DinsdaleP 22:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Liberals love to say that here: "it's your wiki." Basically, liberals think in terms of what someone likes or doesn't like, or has or doesn't have, or belongs or doesn't belong. You're missing out on the best part of life, DinsdaleP. Ideas and principles are where it's at, and they are available to all -- including you. Benefit from the good ideas, for yourself, your family and your friends. Conservative values are particularly useful in defeating addiction, anxiety and depression.--Aschlafly 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

[unindent] Instead of resorting to name-calling (I'm not a liberal), can I get a reasonable answer to a reasonable question? Conservapedia is supposed to be a respectable resource that presents useful information in a trustworthy way from a conservative perspective. Since it's intended to be used by students who take their cues from sources they're told to trust, shouldn't the bar for respectfulness be set higher here, even if it's not elsewhere?
Most Americans disapprove of George Bush's performance at this point based on his approval ratings, but I would never condone him being referred to as other than "President Bush", and neither would you. So you don't like Obama, that's fine. You're clearly mocking him with your "Professor" reference, though, so the question is: Is this the example you want to set for students - that in a "news" story, it's okay to mock people whose positions you disagree with? The responsibility for how respectful these news items are is yours, and that is why I said "It's your Wiki". I'm stating a fact, not a liberal rant. --DinsdaleP 09:01, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

The short answer to your question is this: there is nothing wrong or inappropriate about the careful use of mockery, particularly in responding to a falsehood or boastful claim.--Aschlafly 09:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Emphasis on "careful use"--but you're using a firehose to put out a candle.--RossC 09:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't describe a single quoted word as a "firehose". But we'll move on past Obama to reach other more important issues, so you won't have to remain in agony over this for long.--Aschlafly 10:13, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Universities define and decide who is a professor, not dictionaries. The public relations department is not defining the definition of professor, if you have any evidence that they are, then please post it. Your blind assertion means absolutely nothing, if Obama's campaign has nothing to do with him being a senator, then why is he touting his senatorial experience? Care to back-up your assertion that "his supporters don't back him because he's a senator?" Talk is cheap; I'd like some evidence please. Since Obama was a professor for twelve years and is currently a Senator, why doesn't he have any bragging rights? His campaign resume' is much more comprehensive than what our current president boasted.--Jimmy 22:57, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Jimmy I'm with you here. If Obama thought he would get more support being a professor we would hear more about it. I have never seen Obama touted as a professor. And I also agree with the current president being lite on skills front. Obama has more experience now than Bush did at the same time during his first presidential bid. AdenJ 02:01, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Reporting Vndalism

Is there any sort of "vandalism hotline" here?Dalek 16:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

You can write on the talk page of any sysop and inform them. It's best to check under "recent edits" to see who's online. Here is a list of sysops: DanH 19:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Virginia Tech Shootings

I think Conservapedia needs to have an Op-Ed section on the homepage, because "news" postings like this are misleading. The posting sysop is wrong to add the phrase "Atheistic colleges" when the article doesn't mention any of the participants by name. Opinions without a clear link to a referenced news story should be posted as Op-Ed pieces, and having an Op-Ed section would be a good addition to CP instead. --DinsdaleP 11:38, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

GuardDog Improvements

How come GuardDog wasn't able to stop ConservaMan and Albert? TinkyWinky 15:29, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

They must have slipped him a juicy steak! Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
It probably wasn't active at that time. Jallen 07:58, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservepedia is hosting a big debate

It's a nitpick, but still. I assume it first said "is hosting an immigration debate" but then someone inserted big and public. Rockthecasbah 19:49, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Right. Great catch. Ah, the perils of editing and introducing errors in doing so.--Aschlafly 20:05, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Fixed. Karajou 14:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Can we have video links from Australia, that sounds too fun to miss (or maybe I just love debating) TheGySom 08:07, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Pope's visit

Shouldn't Benedict XVI's first visit to the United States be on the front page? --Ampersand 14:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

That's up to the Sysops, each of whom has access to update the front page.--Aschlafly 18:07, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah, okay. Can one of them add it then? --Ampersand 18:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
"Thousands of Fans Welcome..." This is the Pope, the spiritual leader of a Christian faith ("a uniquely Christian concept") community. Using fans makes him sound like some adherent of Hollywood values. Or is Roman Catholicism some kind of cult? AliceMiller 18:51, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I noticed that too, but it is important to distinguish the attendees from followers, since not all of them were Roman Catholics. Perhaps "supporters" would be better? Or since it was his birthday, "well-wishers"? If you want to go more toned-down, maybe "attendees"? --Ampersand 18:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't see a suggestion that is as good as "fans" for the headline.--Aschlafly 20:15, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I think Ampersand's suggestion of "well-wishers" is a better option than "fans". --DinsdaleP 19:32, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

How about just "Thousands Welcome Pope Benedict XVI"? FernoKlump 21:31, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Folks, these complaints are silly. "Well-wishers" is absurd for a headline, and deleting the concept of support entirely is inappropriate. "Fans" is good for a headline.--Aschlafly 19:40, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Drew University Debate

Are there any details about the debate topic(s) and how they'd be hosted on Conservapedia? Thanks. --DinsdaleP 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't know. My guess is that we won't be publicizing the debate further here.--Aschlafly 18:06, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Bible on teacher's desk

How does it "promote or favor any set of religious beliefs" to allow a teacher to keep a Bible on his desk? Is it open all the time? Is it written in such big print that students passing by can't help being "exposed" to its message? (Most Bibles I've seen are smaller than a notebook computer, and I've already gotten so old that I need special glasses to read the 8-point or 10-point print.) --Ed Poor Talk 15:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I think in this case it comes down to the concept that teachers, especially the best ones, are role models whose views influence those of their students. Any book left on prominent display, which doesn't have to do directly with the classroom syllabus, is effectively an endorsement of the ideas in the book. While most people wouldn't object to the Bible being left out on a desk like this, you'd probably get objections from parents if it was a copy of the Koran, a book about Wicca, or The God Delusion by Dawkins.
No one is telling the teacher he can't be a Christian or practice his faith, and I don't see how it's infringing on that faith to have it kept in a drawer or briefcase when he's not reading it. --DinsdaleP 16:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

What are you saying? That no book unrelated to the curriculum can be on a teacher's desk? Or that the only books a teacher can leave out on their desk must be unrelated to religion? --Ed Poor Talk 17:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying anything like that, just pointing out the obvious - if it's okay for teachers to display books on their desks that represent their religion or personal viewpoints, then people need to be accepting of whatever comes from that policy. You can't say that the Bible is okay but The Gardnerian Book of Shadows, The God Delusion, Heather Has Two Mommies, etc. are unacceptable, unless you want to open the door to endless charges of censorship. The simplest, fairest way to avoid bias issues is to keep personal materials personal, which respects all views evenly. --DinsdaleP 18:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
If the Bible is the infallible Testimony of the Creator of the universe, then why can't I say that the Bible is okay and the rest aren't? Your point presupposes something that I don't agree with and equates things that many would not accept are equal. You are promoting a particular view that, coincidentally or otherwise, is essentially atheistic, yet pretends to be neutral. Philip J. Rayment 03:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
My point is neutral because I respect the fact that the sincere and deep faiths held by people differ, and I have no agenda, Christan, atheistic or otherwise, to declare any as more valid than the others. I respect your deep faith, Philip, and I'm sure it's a source of great strength in your life. For every Philip Rayment, though, there's an Orthodox Jew, a devout Muslim, an atheist, a Bhuddist, and so on, each of whom has a right to have their child attend a public school class without being indoctrinated in the beliefs they don't follow. You can get tied up forever in debating which beliefs are "right" and "wrong" between these groups, which is why I didn't say my answer was the "right" one, just the "simplest and fairest". Public schools should be a neutral environment where faith is concerned, and parents have the freedom to choose private schools or home schooling if they want otherwise. --DinsdaleP 08:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
If you think that public schools should be neutral environments and should not indoctrinate in beliefs that they don't follow, do you speak out against them indoctrinating students with atheistic ideas such as homosexuality being okay and evolution being true?
If person C (e.g. Christian) says that 1+1=2, person B (e.g. Buddhist) says that 1+1=3, and person A (e.g. Atheist) says that both are wrong, are you being neutral to talk as though the views of C and B each have the same validity? Because C and B cannot both be correct, so they are both wrong, which is the view that A takes. So you are siding with A against C and B. How is that being neutral?
Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Remember your response to this issue Philip? "It should default to endorsing Christianity because it's the correct religion, but in practice a government will tend to reflect the wishes of its people, so in that case should endorse Christianity because it's the majority religion in a given country." Evidently you believe the correct worldview should be assigned as the "default" worldview - or, in practice, that of the majority should be. But from others' perspective, it would an incorrect worldview that is being endorsed by the government and favored far above their own, effectively dismissing it as invalid. Does their perspective simply not matter? How can it be taken into acount? I was never clear on how you would resolve this particular matter, in a manner actually fair to others. Feebasfactor 12:02, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Does the perspective of a person who thinks 2+2=11 matter? Why should it be taken into account? Philip J. Rayment 22:33, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Woah! 2+2 does equal 11! I never noticed that... stupid base 3 mathematics, grr. I should go to sleep now, right? +_+ Kektk 23:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Neither students nor teachers "shed their Constitutional rights" when they enter a school building. If by neutral you mean "forbidden to talk about or act on their religious beliefs" then you are opposed to the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment.

A teacher can set a good example of exercising their rights - and inspire students to exercise theirs - by keeping a Bible on their desk. In the case at hand, the teacher had been unmolested in their religious freedom for over a dozen years. How does it "promote or favor any set of religious beliefs" to allow a teacher to keep a Bible on his desk? --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I dunno. Let's the the scientific thing and experiment.
"We've replaced the Bible on this teacher's desk with a Koran. Let's watch what happens."
(Or a copy of Dianetics, a Necronomicon, the Book of the SubGenius.... whatever.)
--Gulik5 12:13, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and how would you test if that "promote[d] or [favoured] any set of religious beliefs"? People objecting doesn't mean that a particular view is being favoured. Your argument is a red herring. Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Bias in Academa

The main page has a story about a college student putting flags on the floor as a political art piece to see if students would avoid stepping on the flag. I don't see the bias in that. I see a thought provoking piece of art. If your argument is against the flag code it should be noted that whenever a politician is wearing those little flag lapel pins they are breaking the flag code. Rellik 19:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The articles explain that the class, Art in Politics, required students to execute a social experiment. In that context, she was measuring the degree to which individuals respect the flag, since she provided an easy path to walk around the flags instead of on them if people wanted to. She also seemed to have mixed feelings herself about it personally ("It was a very hard thing for me to do, to put the flag on the floor"), but felt the findings would be informative. Giving individuals the choice to respect or disrespect the flag themselves is different than disrespecting a flag and asking people what they think about it.
As a social experiment, then, this was a reasonable exercise, and the results were encouraging - 95-98% of the people in the hallway chose respect. --DinsdaleP 20:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


Is there any way to get a sysop ASAP and I mean near-instantaneously , such as when a vandal is attacking.--GabharGneasach 07:40, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Done. BrianCo 07:52, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Times Picture of Iwo Jima

I can't believe someone would insult the heroism of those who gave their lives to fight tyranny by roping them into this frivolous battle against the so-called problem of global warming.--GabharGneasach 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I will fully admit that I have never served in the Armed Forces, so I can't see things from the same perspective. But I think this moral outrage is a little misplaced. For starters, the original photo was staged, Second, they've simply used a well known cultural image. They did't desecrate the flag, they didn't mock the soldiers, they simply used the picture to create a photographic symbol. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 14:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
The original photo was not staged at all. What you've looked at was the second flag-raising on Mt. Suribachi. The first involved a smaller flag, and that was taken down by the Marine force commander due to its historical significance, and the larger flag was substituted. Joe Rosenthal and a film cameraman were told to be on the mountaintop for the raising of the second flag, and they got there seconds before the flag went up [5][6][7]. Karajou 23:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberal newspapers

At the time of writing, the second news story says "Fewer people care what liberal newspapers have to say anymore." The news item above that reports an L. A. Times news story; according to the page here the L. A. Times is "is a well known liberal newspaper based". Doesn't this strike anyone as being slightly hypocritical? Henry8th 19:25, 19 April 2008 (EDT)