Talk:Main Page/archive64

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Main page

When did the lower left main page become Conservative's scrapbook? Was there discussion about this? Is there a purpose? BenjaminG 09:42, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I was just about to say the same thing. The entire front page has a nice, professional look, until you scroll all the way down. HelpJazz 13:09, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Dear God, there is another section now? "Hitler's Evolutionary Racism"? Seriously? I already commented on the first section (see "Left column, bottom: Ole!" on this page), but this one easily tops it. And this box is now also at the top of the Theory of evolution article? *shakes head* Any sysop willing to revert this? It's so petty. So incredibly petty... --DirkB 14:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Why aren't the bitter fruits of the liberal worldview relevant to Conservapedia's mainpage? Certainly the evolutionary worldview beloved by most liberals has had a very negative effect on the world. conservative 19:32, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
...I wasn't aware that evolution is a "liberal worldview". Does that mean that people who accept evolution (or at least consider it to be a valid theory) are liberals? And I'm getting slight "Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust" vibes here - please tell me that I'm wrong. --DirkB 19:42, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Not only are you wrong. You're clueless. Of course the Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust. Read our article and hopefully the scales will fall from your eyes. AliceBG 20:17, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
So I'm both wrong and right at the same time? And I'm genuinely not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. This odd mix of quantum correctness, personal remarks and weird claim is jamming my Internet Sensors, so please clarify your position for confused cats in little boxes. --DirkB 20:26, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep it civil, AlicBG (I'm speaking as an administrator).
I don't go along with some on this site who appear to see "liberal" and "conservative" in black-and-white only. People are more complex than that, and will be on one side in some areas and the other side in other areas. So I do reject the idea that only "liberals" accept evolution and all evolutionists are "liberals". However, having said that, I will say that evolution is pretty-well indispensable for "liberals", and most creationists would be conservatives. But many conservatives are also evolutionists.
I'm not real clear on just what the objection to the Main Page is, but it seems as though linking Hitler with evolution is a significant part of the objection. And as far as that point is concerned, the link is a quite valid one.
Philip J. Rayment 08:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Dirk, apparently you have not read the evolution article in regards to liberalism and the evolutionary position: Not very surprising. conservative 20:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
It should be easy to find. It's one of our most popular articles. almost as popular as the one on the F-18 Hornet...right, Conservative? AliceBG 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, by this reasoning, it's the American View that "it is possible to believe in both God and evolution" ("Sixty-seven percent say this is possible, while 29 percent disagree."). I think your "argument" (which is completely based on a single American survey) is very shaky. But nevermind that. Just give me a straight yes/no answer to this question: Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust? In other words - if Darwin hadn't published his theories and findings, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here (both from your posts and the way you try to link Hitler to evolution in what does look like blatant Guilt By Association on our Main Page), and I don't like it. --DirkB 20:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Did the theory of evolution cause the holocaust? Who can say? If Darwin hadn't published his ideas, Wallace probably would have, and if he hadn't, someone else may have. So that's an unanswerable question. But if nobody had published similar ideas, would the holocaust have happened? I think that there is a good chance that it would not have. My two points for saying this are that (1) evolution had a major (negative) impact on society's thinking, and (2) Hitler was basing his ideas on evolution. In support of point (1) I will quote anti-racist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, who said "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory"[1]. In support of point (2), Il will quote anti-Nazi evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith: "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"[2]. There's much more to support the link that just those two quotes of course, but they encapsulate it pretty well. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
PJR, my objection isn't linking Hitler to evolution, it's using a large picture of Hitler as the very first picture, with more pictures of Hitler spread throughout, as if he were the most important person in evolution. I'm not saying don't mention Hitler, just that the previous picture of Darwin at the top of the page makes more sense in an encyclopedic article, not a picture of someone who misused evolution.--IanG 09:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
But to answer your implied question: No, I did not read your Evolution article, just like I didn't read your Atheism article. Or your Homosexuality article. The reason is that these articles are less readable than a phone book. I tried to read them. I honestly tried. But before I even reached the ToC, my hand developed a life of its own and closed the tab, apparently in some sort of Fight-or-Flight attempt. I'll be nice and ignore the long stretches where you simply pile quotes upon quotes to erect some sort of point. But straight from the respective beginnings, it's clear that the articles are trying to push an agenda, so I might as well read a Chick Tract. Those are at least short, entertaining, and about as likely to give a fair overview about the subject as your articles. I come from Wikipedia, and while I don't like the way some people there dominate some articles (especially ones about liberal politicians), you and your articles make them look very tame. Perceived bias should not be countered by blatant over-the-top bias in the other direction. That is not the way of an encyclopedia. --DirkB 21:12, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
It is not surprising that you would not read the articles since many liberals get upset when they read facts rather than liberal blather. Secondly, there is no point in answering your questions if you are allergic to facts. conservative 21:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
It is not surprising that people can't stand to read nothing but personal opinion and propaganda when they're trying to research something. The evolution page isn't an article, it's your own personal rant. --IanG 22:11, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
...are you implying that I'm a liberal, just because I think your "articles" are one-sided, blatant propaganda that hurt the image of this encyclopedia? Also, why didn't you answer the question? Please do. I need closure. --DirkB 21:57, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, I happen to think that if the Catholic Church (humans) was relatively mum during the Holocaust, and God certainly wasn't smiting anybody for it, then we can't really blame anybody except Darwinist liberals for it's continuation and length, now can we? OtherSide 00:22, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, yes we can. We can blame the genocidal fascists. --IanG 00:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
No, no, they were liberals. They took away the people's guns and believed in evolution. Democratic platform, plain and simple. If they were fascists, they would be at the extreme right, which doesn't make any sense. Hitler was a liberal, and I don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary, because it's just as much of a waste of time as trying to find another Western country in the 1940s that treated a certain group as ethnically inferior. OtherSide 17:25, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Is that post a joke? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ekeegan (talk)

Kinda sorta. Normally I have no patience for people who try to parody the often-times good work done on here, but I was trying to make a point that this encyclopedia is getting associative osteoporosis. While the contrasts and points it used to make on it's many articles was once somewhat scholarly, even if it wasn't objective in the slightest, it's becoming a massive violator of Godwin's Law, and whatever similar "laws" dictate radical comparisons on the Internet. If this is supposed to be a tool for people to learn more and invest time and opinion into conservative discourse, then why are we wasting our time on these things on the MAIN PAGE? It's ridiculous and it doesn't reflect well on the state of the encyclopedia as a whole. Why is it only evolution? Why not just as easily say that Hitler considered Sparta a model fascist/militaristic society? Oh that's right, because nobody really sits around debating Sparta these days, so there's no way to accuse liberals of being Hitler's heirs. OtherSide 23:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
The reason for linking Hitler with evolution is not because evolution is a topic and people want to make it look bad by linking Hitler to it, but because the connection is very real. See also my post above (search for "09:03, 13 September "). Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
So why not show the link between evolution and say, someone not considered a beacon of evil? Oh, right. I forgot how Christian mudslinging is. I forgot it's okay to bear false witness if it's a retroactive. I forgot that conservative means conserving everything but decency and reasoned arguments and brain cells, which last as long here as Pop Rocks in monsoon season. OtherSide 22:47, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Why whitewash it? As for mudslinging, I think you provided a good example of it yourself. Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Philip, have the points raised by OtherSide, DirkB, BrianH, RJJensen, HelpJazz, myself and others on this page made no impact on you at all? It is not a question of whitewashing; the fact is that the link between evolutionary science and Hitler is tenuous at best, and is a false application of evolutionary theory, if it can be seen as application of evolutionary theory at all. Evoking Hitler in reference to evolution is reducing the evolutionist-creationist debate to the level of lowest common denominator, or, as OtherSide says, mudslinging.
To apply an analogy, the British serial killer Peter Sutcliffe claimed that the voice of God told him to murder prostitutes (although the Conservapedia article about him strangely omits to mention this). Does this mean that all believers in God are guilty of the same kind of psychotic delusions as Sutcliffe? Of course not! But associating evolutionism with Hitler is drawing exactly the same kind of straw man association to denigrate its proponents. Sideways 10:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, associating two things is a matter of personal interpretation. If people come to that conclusion on their own, that's fine. Trying to sell a universally despised icon of evil with one side of a debatable issue which this site clearly opposes? Now, that's despicable. I think there's a serious brain disorder going on when someone's willing to do that just to tar-and-feather the other side of an issue which will most likely rage on after everyone who currently uses this site has died. It's STUPID. OtherSide 10:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The points raised by others have not convinced me. And I totally disagree that the link is "tenuous at best".
The Bible teaches that murder is wrong, so Sutcliffe was clearly not hearing God. I agree with you that someone misusing an idea should not reflect badly on the idea. The question, though, is whether Hitler was misusing it. Various commentators have said that he was not misusing it. Did the quote from Sir Arthur Keith have no impact on you at all? It is not the same kind of association at all.
Philip J. Rayment 07:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Back on track

Ok let's get back onto the issue at hand here: the displaying of pictures with humorous (to some) captions on the main page.

My complaint has not to do with the articles themselves (as such complaints belong on the respective talk pages), but on the manner in which they are displayed on the main page. Please take a look at the rest of the main page and tell me if you truly, honestly think that it matches with a picture of Hitler linking to an article on evolution (Godwin's Law anyone?) and a picture of a dead and dying bull linking to an article on atheism (a) match the spirit of the main page, and (b) improve the overall look and message of the first page anybody sees when they come to this site.

I hope you can agree that, at least through asthetics, these two pictures do not belong. Now we have to ask: do links to the articles belong on the page? Conservative you said... well I don't know what you said but I assume that the basic argument boils down to "these are some of our most important issues and should be highlighted on the front page." You would be correct in that assessment, EXCEPT for the fact that these two articles are not good examples of how our encyclopedia is supposed to work. Conservapedia was built on the principle of collaberation between conservatives (and non-conservatives who know how to behave themselves) in order to become better than any individual could do. So we should exemplify on our main page articles which show this quality; atheism and evolution, frankly, do not. They are locked articles, they have largely one contributer (Conservative), and little, if any, community input ever makes it onto the page. So I ask you another question: do you truly, honestly, think that linking to those two articles showcase what Conservapedia is all about?

Please note that I did not discuss the content or the quality of the articles, only the manner in which they are presented on the main page and the manner in which they were created. Arguments about whether or not they are good articles belong on the respective talk pages. HelpJazz 00:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, while the picture of the bull was humorous, Hitler is a perfect posterboy for the evolutionary position. If you haven't had a chance to see the movie Expelled I would suggest doing so. The evolutionary position is tied to countless human lives being lost. Also, Hitler was a unreasonable man. I also believe the main page piece highlights the racism of Darwin and a great deal of evolutionists throughout history. As Gould stated, Darwinism increased racism by an order(s) of magnitude. (can't recall exact quote). conservative 18:02, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I wish I could see Expelled, but it hasn't been released in Oz yet. I hear the DVD is due out next month, though. Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The "exact quote" is in a post of mine above (search for "09:03, 13 September"). Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
For Hitler to be the poster boy for evolution, I suppose that means most people who believe in evolution are racist? Because that is what people are led to believe by reading that. --IanG 23:02, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Evolution is a racist concept (e.g. some are more evolved than others). That doesn't mean that everyone who believes in evolution is necessarily a racist, however. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Evolution is not a "racist concept". It makes no claims about any species (let alone race) being "more evolved". For you to say so shows me that you know less about evolution than I thought you did (I had little hope for Conservative to understand anything about this, but I had higher hopes for you, Philip). Furthermore, Hitler is a decidedly poor choice for a demonstration on the effects of evolution because (assuming he was using "survival of the fittest" as justification for the Holocaust) he got it completely wrong. You might as well say he is the poster boy for the effects of Christianity, because he was a proclaimed Christian, but obviously missed the point of the religion entirely. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean "find a group you think might be inferior and kill them all" any more than "you shall have no gods before me" means "kill everyone who worships another god". Evolutionarily speaking the Jews are no different from anyone else, so if Hitler were trying to put Darwinian theory into practice, he failed miserably. Natural selection deals with how a species has adapted to its natural environment. An atmosphere of Zyklon B is not a natural environment anywhere. If Hitler were doing anything approaching a Darwinian experiment, he would have put both Jews and the "master race" in gas chambers believing that Germans would survive based on their natural superiority. He didn't. Like many before him (long before Darwin was born) he found a group he had an irrational hatred for (a hatred he rationalized) and killed them en masse. That he did so so efficiently is a result of technology, not ideology. Evolution is not even a "speciesist" concept (unlike Christianity) let alone a racist one. BrianH 11:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
If life has gone through various evolutionary stages from the first "simple" cell to the variety of life we have today, then it's blatantly obvious that some creatures are "more evolved" than others. Denying it is denying evolution. And that's ignoring Gould's comment above, and Darwin's view that black people were the missing link.
Hitler was not a Christian (despite what he might have claimed for political purposes). He had plans to eliminate Christianity because he knew that Christianity would be his biggest obstacle. What is a "Darwinian experiment"? Certainly he was not doing a scientific experiment, but then Darwinism/evolution is not science, so that point fails.
Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
If you mean "more evolved" to mean "has had more mutations" then you're right. If you mean it as a judgment that something is better, than that is not true. By the first definition, a man born with a foot growing out of his forehead is "more evolved" than the rest of us. That this foot would be a huge hindrance and give him no advantages shows that calling something "more evolved" is meaningless. Species adapt to their environment or they do not. All races of human have evolved the same, and have adapted well. As for Gould's comment, it is irrelevant. It is not surprising that racists have misunderstood evolution and/or twisted it to their own purpose. Racists have a history of doing that. You might as well say after the rise of Christianity the persecution of pagans increased dramatically. Charlemagne slew thousands in the name of Christ. That doesn't mean Christianity condones murder.
You can argue all day about whether Hitler was a true Christian. We all agree that what he did was not an act in line with Christianity. But it was also not in line with evolutionary theory.
A Darwinian experiment would be an experiment conducted along the lines of the theories of Darwin, probably to test a hypothesis (his main hypothesis being, I suppose, that Germans were superior to Jews). The hypothetical experiment I mentioned is not a great one, but it at least would have had something to do with the concept of survival of the fittest. Hitler thinks Germans are biologically superior, so he does an experiment to see who can survive in a highly contrary environment: an atmosphere with significant amounts of Zyklon B. If the Germans survive and the Jews die, he can make the claim that Germans are better adapted in at least this one way, then he goes on to kill the Jews so only people who are resistant to Zyklon B survive. Therefore, should the Earth's atmosphere ever suddenly be composed of Zyklon B, the human race would survive. It's a ridiculous notion, and certainly not his aim, but that at least that would have some connection to Darwinism, unlike his actual idea: "I think Germans are superior to Jews because I'm a German and I hate Jews, therefore I will kill all Jews". Nothing Darwinian about that. "I'm better than them so I'll kill them" is an idea about as old as humanity itself.
Fianlly, about Darwin thinking black people were the missing link, what are you talking about? How can humans be the missing link between humans and another species? Also let us not forget that the science (and yes, I do mean science) of evolution has changed over the years, just as all sciences have. So a claim made by Darwin is not always relevant to evolution as it is understood today. BrianH 12:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
You draw a simplistic contrast between "more mutations" and "better". "Better" is a subjective opinion, so I'm not talking about that, yet the difference between bacteria and humans, for example, is not simply "more mutations". Clearly humans have a lot more genetic information than bacteria.
"All races of human have evolved the same, and have adapted well": That is begging the question. Yes, all "races" are effectively the same, but is that due to evolution? Evolution would not predict that separate evolutionary lineages would evolve the same, and clearly early evolutionists didn't expect that people would have evolved the same. (See also race and its footnote 1.) The fact that they are the same does not support that evolution would evolve them the same; rather it supports the idea that they haven't evolved.
"It is not surprising that racists have misunderstood evolution and/or twisted it to their own purpose.": So I guess Darwin misunderstood evolution. Yeah, that makes sense.
"But it was also not in line with evolutionary theory.": I maintain that it is.
Your "Darwinian experiment" is a scientific experiment that tests whether Germans are better than Jews at resisting the effects of Zyklon B. It doesn't actually test for anything to do with evolution. How would evolution make Germans more resistant to a chemical that they had never been exposed to?
Evolution did not make Hitler think Germans to be superior, nor did it make him kill the Jews. But the racism of evolution provided the justification for him doing so.
"How can humans be the missing link between humans and another species?": By considering them to not be fully human.
Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Are you arguing that Darwin was a racist or that evolution is a racist concept? I won't argue against the first point, mostly because it's irrelevant (though I would like to know where Darwin says that black people aren't human). That ignores the fact that just about everyone in the 19th century was a racist. I notice the obvious racism of Washington, Jefferson, and every other founding father is ignored on this site. Even those whites of that era who thought black people deserved rights rarely if ever though they were actually equal to whites. That concept is much older than evolutionary theory. If you want to argue that evolution is a "racist" concept you will have to do better than "racists cite it" (which is useless and furthermore ignores the fact that the biggest racist organization in this country, the KKK, rejects evolution) "Darwin was racist" or it postulates that some races are more evolved than others, which it doesn't. "More evolved" is a meaningless concept anyway. Humans are more complex than bacteria, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. Bacteria are the most successful life forms on the planet. Furthermore, if you want to make labels about evolution as it is understood today, it is best not to only rely on the works of Darwin. There has been scientific progress in the past 150 years, you know.
Back to Hitler. He may have cited evolution to justify what he did, but he did so appallingly poorly. I believe he also used Christianity to justify his murders (and if he didn't, there are plenty throughout history who have). So why is evolution a murderous, racist, evil concept but Christianity not, when both have been misused to justify atrocities? Again, you nitpick the details of my theoretical experiment (that its unlikely for anyone to be immune to a chemical they never encountered is neither here nor there), the point is there is no legitimate evolutionary theory behind anything Hitler did. He decided Jews were inferior (based on his personal feelings, not anything remotely scientific) so he tried to kill them all (nothing new there, really). If asked why, one of the answers he may give is "evolution!" It's always nice to be able to cite science to justify what you do because it sounds good, and few people understand it enough to know you're doing it entirely wrong. You can argue that his ideas of Germans only breeding with Germans to maintain a "pure" race has some connection to evolution, but selective breeding goes back to prehistoric times. You still have not cited anything connecting Hitler with legitimate evolutionary theory other than that Hitler's say-so. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Hitler was not an honest person. BrianH 09:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
You completely ignored what I said in my post. HelpJazz 18:16, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Ian, Hitler was unreasonable man and therefore he is the perfect posterboy for the evolutionary position. I see no reason to believe in the evolutionary position given the lack of any real fossil evidence. In short, the burden of proof always rest on the claimant or claimants and the evolutionists certainly look foolish claiming there is overwhelming evidence to support the evolutionary position given the poverty of the fossil record to support their contention. conservative 01:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, Darwin is the most widely used and recognized person when it comes to evolution. He IS the posterboy for evolution.--IanG 09:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
For Hitler to be a "posterboy" for the evolutionary position, you would need to provide an example of evolutionists using him as a posterboy, & I don't think you can produce such an example. Otherwise, I think what you mean is that he is the perfect straw man for the evolutionary position - I.E. using him as a hate figure to demonise an opposing view - and this is not the same thing.
Social Darwinism (like that of Hitler) derives from Darwin's theories regarding survival of the fittest, but is not directly connected with Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species. We do not even know if hitler believed in the evolution of the species, simply because he did not comment on it. He was much more interested in racial theory than he was in the natural world. Using Hitler as an evolutionary "posterboy" completely misrepresents evolutionary theory. Sideways 07:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Conservative actually said (although the wording was not the best) that "Hitler is a perfect posterboy for the evolutionary position" (my emphasis). I think he meant that Hitler is the perfect posterboy for the effects that evolution has had on society, not for evolution itself. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, the aspect of Darwinism which Hitler drew on was natural selection (the survival of the fittest). This particular theory of Darwin's is almost universally accepted, even by creationists (the natural selection article confirms this). Hitler falsely applied the survival of the fittest principal to races and nations, but he was not applying an evolutioniary position, since it possible to accept natural selection as a general principle without necessarily accepting the theory of evolution. In fact, Hitler's ideas were at odds with evolutionary theory, since he believed in eliminating what he considered to be inferior races and founding a homogenous "master race", whereas evolutionism emphasises diversity of species and characteristics as a result of evolution. Sideways 12:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
In the evolutionary story, natural selection selects for improvements provided by mutations. In the creationary view, natural selection removes defects and selects from existing information. Hitler thought that the Aryans were more evolved and that he should eliminate the less evolved (inferior). Evolution is about advance, not just diversity. Philip J. Rayment 07:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Of course evolution is about advance as well as diversity, but the two things go together - the theory is that the vast array of plants and creatures we see today evolved from a single starting point over millions of years. This diversity has resulted from organisms procreating with other organisms having similar but slightly differing characteristics. The stronger characteristics survive and over time these minor differences diverge into different species. Hitler's ideas run counter to this, since, in Mein Kampf (chapter XI, where the quote in the caption was lifted from), he claimed that it was "unnatural" for this kind of interbreeding (which is the driving force of evolution) to occur, that creatures only procreate with those of identical characteristics, and especially that interracial procreation among humans is similarly "unnatural". This is a gross misapplication of Darwinism and wholly unrepresentative of evolutionary science. Sideways 08:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Evolution isn't supposed to be the result of sexual reproduction, as that only allows for existing genetic information to be passed on. Rather, evolution is supposed to be the result of mutations, which supposedly introduce new genetic information. It is you who is claiming something "unrepresentative of evolutionary" claims. Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
"Evolution" was one of the most widely used terms in the world around 1900, and it meant many different things --especially about technology and human history--all far outside of biology. Those other meanings have very little to do with the Bible or conservatism, and should not be mixed up with Darwinian evolution of species. In particular, "social darwinism" is not at all incompatible with the Bible, which is full of stories of bloody conquests of one nation or tribe over another. RJJensen 08:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
"Evolution" does have legitimate meanings, but it also has naturalistic meaning outside of biology, such as the evolution of the stars. And social Darwinism is not compatible with the Bible, a fair bit of which is simply recording history, often without endorsing it. Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok my "back on track" thread is now off track again. I give up. Conservative: keep your pictures and links to non-representative, pet articles. It's probably better that newcomers to the site learn quickly that there are only certain articles they are allowed to edit. It will solve some of the "talk, talk, talk" problem that we keep facing. HelpJazz 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, that's a very negative remark to make and one that maligns Conservapedia. This site is open to debate and discussion (as long as the discussion is not deliberately contrived to cause obstruction and damage), and the implication that censorship of virews takes place is completely unjustified. Just because you haven't seen things go the way you wanted on this occassion is no excuse for pseudo-Partian shots which sound suspiciously like chucking teddy out of the pram. Bugler 09:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Anglican church on evolution

The church of England has publicly come out supporting evolution to avoid negative perception of Christianity worldwide resulting from "noisy creationists" especially in United states. Do you think it should make to the front page?--DavidN 17:32, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

We should also include this quote: "Tahir Alam, of the Muslim Council of Britain, expressed concern that there was a rising trend of intolerance towards religious beliefs and said: “Secular atheism is getting very dogmatic."
I've added an item about it. Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Here's a rant by the COE Director of Mission and Public Affairs. Why is the COE promoting atheistic ideas? Shamas 10:44, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hurricane Ike

I have been watching the images on TV and my thoughts go out all in South Texas. If any on here (or their families) are caught up in it, I hope all are safe. --KotomiTHajimemashite! 13:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama's "Still" ad makes fun of McCain's inability to send email

Unfortunately for Obama, the reason McCain can't send email is because the injuries he suffered while a prisoner of war make it very painful for him to type. McCain does enjoy email, however, and has his wife type for him:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

Jinxmchue 13:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

The idea that McCain can't use email or the Internet because he suffered grievous injuries while a POW is not supported by the facts. While I am not belittling his pain and suffering at the hands of his Vietnamese torturers, his injuries upon release were not severe enough to prevent him from recovering physically and passing the Class I Flight Physical required for his naval flying career. The Forbes reference didn't quote McCain as saying his wartime injuries prevented him from using a keyboard, he admitted to being 'laborious', while Richard Rapaport at Forbes seemed to invent the POW excuse.
In this NY Times article McCain states[3]; "I don't e-mail. I've never felt the particular need to e-mail." “They go on for me,” he said. “I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.”
Based on what McCain has admitted, Obama's accusation is not inaccurate, at least for now. --NormaN 23:41, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain's chances improved over the week

According to the betting market, McCain's chances of winning the election improved significantly during the past week, with Obama's probability sliding from 73% in July to 57% now. -- Ferret Nice old chat 19:55, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

There is a hateful and slanderous site mocking this site's good name.

I have come to the unfortunate discovery of an evil and possible satanist encyclopedia mocking this site. I advise you to read at your own risk. I believe it is time for action for this libel! I was hoping you editors could help. --JesusIsMyFriend 09:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Please don't link to sites that have inappropriate content, and put new posts at the bottom as I've moved it for your convenience. I no-wiki'd your link. Sam 10:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
That's horrible. I agree that no one should read that. The site seems to have only one author, and hopefully no one else finds it! I suggest emailing the FBI about this, and I will write a letter of support if you decide to do that. Praise jesus, Pila 11:40, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, guys. Looks like a parody of the parodies and critics. Jinxmchue 00:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

If you want to address a petty, insular, insignificant and completely intangible "threat" to any form of conservatism, I suggest you post it in the Breaking News section. I'm sure it will find a nice home among its brethren. OtherSide 10:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

"Socialist" Britain

I completely agree with the news article about adoption in Britain, but can you please stop calling Britain a socialist state? Allow me to give a brief history of the Labour Party. It was founded as a Marxist-Socialist Party with strong trade union links. It flirted with government briefly in the inter-war period before its first real government in 1945 under Clement Attlee. The Attlee government could be considered socialist, but it was a failure; Labour would not regain office until 1964 under Harold Wilson. By this point, Labour had hard-line Marxist elements, but, on balance, Labour could not be considered socialist. Then, it would retake power in 1974, with pretty much the same policies. Then, we had a Conservative government for 18 years, in which most of Attlee's enduring socialism was swept away by the New Right, under Margaret Thatcher. In 1992, everybody predicted a Labour victory, and a Prime Minister Neil Kinnock. Prime Minister John Major was unpopular, but Labour was not seen as electable; they were still advocating high taxes for the middle classes and maintained union links. Socialism in Britain was finished, and Neil Kinnock's electoral defeat showed this very clearly.

Then, John Smith took power, swiftly followed by Tony Blair. They reformed the party, brought it closer to the centre and abandoned the enduring socialist policy of nationisation (Clause IV). This time, it won power, in the Labour government that is with us today. It had some concessions to its socialist origins (John Prescott, for one) but it was not a socialist party any more. The Labour party under Blair could be considered social democratic, but even this is a stretch. Labour is no longer socialist, and Britain is certainly not socialist. I'll concede that the UK is further to the left than the United States (something I am pleased with) but to call it a socialist state is entirely incorrect.

If you could stop calling it "socialism" in future news posts, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

KarlJaeger 11:43, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Under the leftist Gordon Brown, redistributive tax and spend policies have reached an unprecedented height, and the socialist government has renationalised the railway infrastructure and has recently nationalised a major bank. It has pushed through legislation attacking the family as the base unit of society, and has introduced a multiplicity of laws infringing on the personal freedoms of the British peoples. Unsocialist? I don't think so. Bugler 11:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Britain's economy is current under pressure, explaining the redistributive tax and the nationisation of the banks. What legislation attacks family, and how is this socialist? I presume you mean things like allowing homosexual couples to adopt; I agree, they're not conservative (small "c"), but that doesn't make them socialist. You have to remember, Britain is a more liberal society than the US. Even the Conservative party (capital "C") is not opposed to these measures. The high-profile Tory mayor of London, Boris Johnson has made appearances at gay-pride marches. By all means, call Britain liberal, but don't call it socialist.

KarlJaeger 12:15, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm tempted to think of another government with huge spending policies (record debts and deficits) which has recently nationalized two major mortgage brokers. In late 2001 it also passed laws infringing on the personal freedoms of its peoples. Is that socialist? BrianH 12:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that was a quick transition from being tempted to think about it to naming facts! Good progress BrianH. Good point, too. OtherSide 11:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Gaoling vs. Jailing

If you're going to use the arhaic spelling of jailing, then it's gayoling not gaoling. gaol = the noun jail, to gayole = the verb. Also FYI in the UK jail is used almost universally and I thought that it was the same ase in the US Chappers 13:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Natural fertility treatment more effective than IVF

A study has shown that natural fertility treatment is more effective than IVF. IVF often results in discarding of surplus human embryos and can result in multiple births.

Expanding Evolution section on bottom-left of Main Page

It's not a big deal, but I've noticed that the bottom-left section of the Main Page is starting to look like a proxy for the Evolution article itself. The Main page has an article of the week, Article of the Year, Guest World treasure, etc. Shouldn't there be some sort of comparable Section heading that these belong under? Right now it just looks like they're being placed there with no rhyme or reason. --DinsdaleP 23:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Formerly there was just blank space and it has been that way for a long time. Now the space is being utilized to spotlight the evil nature of one of the common tenets of liberalism which is fitting for an encyclopedia called Conservapedia. (Please see: ). conservative 04:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Now there's blank space on the right side of the screen. HelpJazz 17:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
The other problem, of course, is that the new additions make the site look stupid. The attempt to link Hitler to the theory of evolution is misguided and a bit pathetic. The quote itself amply demonstrates that Hitler had little understanding of the theory. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary higher stage". Evolution is not a progression from a lower level to a higher level. It is merely change and selection. There is no lower and higher stage of being. I suggest that you remove these recent additions. --Horace42 18:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
The "attempt" to link Hitler to evolution is not misguided at all. The link is very real. Evolution is the story of how life started with a "simple" single-celled creature and from that developed greater and greater complexity. That sounds very much like a "progression from a lower level to a higher level" to me. Philip J. Rayment 07:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
That is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Furthermore, even if true, what does progression to a "higher level" have to do with the murder of 6 million Jews? That has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If Hitler thought Germans were "more evolved" than Jews, that just goes to show how he completely misunderstood evolution; any actual scientist can clearly demonstrate what a false premise that is. "I'm better than you so I'm going to hurt you" is not an evolutionary concept; it goes back to the earliest human interactions. TomG 09:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
" have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.": Yet you don't even attempt to demonstrate that claim.
"...what does progression to a "higher level" have to do with the murder of 6 million Jews?": Hitler considered the Jews at a "lower level". Many scientists agreed with the principle that biology (not evolution) has since shown to be a "false premise". That science (biology) has since shown that evolution was wrong on this does not mean that evolution didn't say that.
Philip J. Rayment 10:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
When you talk of "higher" and "lower" life forms you are misrepresenting evolution. I find it odd that the people who say evolution is bad because it says humans are no better than dogs are the same ones who say it promotes the idea that one race is superior to another.
Hitler considered Jews a "lower level", sure, but he had no evolutionary basis for that, he simply said he was more evolved than them. That's misusing evolution, and making it an excuse. No one denies that some bad things have been done in the name of evolution, but it doesn't seem that's what you're arguing. Many bad things have been done in the name of every religion on earth, that doesn't mean each religion condones such actions. If you can find an actual evolutionary biologist (and if you can accept that the term is not an oxymoron) who makes the claim that Jews are a less evolved group/race/breed/species/whatever, then you can try to blame him for some of Hitler's actions, if you like, but the truth is that Hitler hated Jews, probably for a variety of reasons. I don't know if the reasons he commonly stated, or if he just knew they were the ones he could sell most easily (saying they were communists who stole the nation's money when the country was in a deep depression is a useful propaganda tactic), but he did hate them, and would have killed them with or without a contrived evolution excuse. Trying to show evolution is a bad thing by tying it to Hitler is actually counterproductive; it merely makes clear the need for comprehensive education so people will be sure to learn what bunk Hitler's "evolution" statements are. TomG 11:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
No, I'm not misrepresenting evolution. I've already posted a quote from Sir Arthur Keith on this page that addresses this issue. And from this article, which is worth reading in itself, is this quote from anti-creationist Peter Quinn:
Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon. “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,” he predicts. “At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Philip J. Rayment 05:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
"Evolution is the story of how life started with a "simple" single-celled creature and from that developed greater and greater complexity. That sounds very much like a "progression from a lower level to a higher level" to me."
Well, maybe, if you want to define 'lower' and 'higher' like that. But if you did, and then you said that humans should destroy all bacteria because they were a 'lower' life-form, would that be correct application of evolutionary theory? No. It would be a misunderstanding because 'lower' does mean 'inferior' in this context - we've just defined it as 'less complex'.
Your Arthur Keith quote that you mention does not address the issue, it merely states that Hitler believed in evolution and attempted to apply it to society, which no-one has tried to deny because it isn't particularly pertinent to a discussion of how valid his interpretation of evolution was. Also whether Darwin was or was not a racist doesn't seem very important considering the prevalence of racism in the 19th Century (as pointed out earlier).
"Hitler considered the Jews at a "lower level". Many scientists agreed with the principle that biology (not evolution) has since shown to be a "false premise". That science (biology) has since shown that evolution was wrong on this does not mean that evolution didn't say that."
Evolution certainly does not say that Jews are at a 'lower level' or anything of the sort, which is clearly what you are implying here. Sam99foster 12:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) "But if you did, and then you said that humans should destroy all bacteria because they were a 'lower' life-form, would that be correct application of evolutionary theory?": Yes, I think so. Of course it's not a good thing to do, because God created bacteria for a purpose, but according to the evolutionary view, why not? Okay, perhaps that's going a little too far; bacteria have, after all, supposedly survived this long, so they must have something going for them. But the point is that evolution is supposed to get rid of the less-fit, which means that there must be living things that are less fit, that need to be eliminated. As to whether particular living things are less fit than particular other living things is a separate question, which I'll address below regarding the Jews.

Sir Arthur Keith did not say that Hitler "sought to make the practice of Germany conform to his view of the theory of evolution". There's no hint there that Keith thought that Hitler was misapplying it. And before the horrors of the holocaust became known, many other scientists, including in America, supported Hitler's views.

As for racism being common, see the quote from Gould just above that from Keith. Evolution strengthened evolutionary views.

No, evolution generally does not name which living things are inferior to others, and therefore it doesn't say that the Jews are at a lower level, but Darwin obviously thought so, as can be seen by a quote in my post on this page dated 05:51, 20 September. Perhaps Hitler was going a little beyond evolution to classify the Jews as inferior, but he was being entirely consistent with many other people, including evolutionary scientists, in considering some "races" superior to others. See footnote 1 of the article on race.

Philip J. Rayment 05:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

You keep coming back to a few quotes by Darwin to show he was a racist, therefore evolution is a racist concept. It's much like saying Lutheranism is anti-semitic because Luther was an anti-Semite. The idea that some races are "superior" was scientifically debunked long ago. Yes, some people still adhere to this, and they are called racists. And they are as often as not Christians, or at least claim to be. You have demonstrated nothing racist about the concept of evolution itself. You also miss the mark when try to malign various scientists by saying they supported Hitler before they found out about the Holocaust. But it's the Holocaust that is being discussed. You can't say Hitler had a valid view according to scientists if they supported him before they knew what his big "evolutionary plan" was. But you are the most wrong when you assert that evolution dictates that humans should destroy all bacteria. Why? Because it's less complex? So humans should destroy all life that is less complex than we are? That is, arguably, every living on earth. You seem to be confusing natural selection with artificial selection, among other misunderstandings. SamN 09:16, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It is false to say that I keep coming back to a few quotes by Darwin. I've offered quotes by Darwin, Gould, Keith, and George William Hunter, at least. How many more do you need? Yes, the idea that some races are superior was debunked by science, but that doesn't mean that evolution is not racist. After all, I say that science has also debunked evolution! And I disagree that I've demonstrated nothing racist about evolution. No, it's not the holocaust being discussed. It's Hitler's ideas that led to the holocaust that are being discussed. That the scientists didn't realise how far he would take his ideas doesn't mean that they didn't support the basic idea of evolutionary racism. Or eugenics, to be precise.
My point about the bacteria was that they should be destroyed if they are "less fit", because that's what evolution does. That it sounds crazy (and it is crazy) is simply because evolution is crazy. True, I'm conflating natural selection with artificial selection, but what's the real difference? After all, "artificial selection" is simply humans doing what they can to kill off the less fit, and if humans are just a part of nature, then surely "artificial selection" is just a subset of "natural selection"!
Philip J. Rayment 10:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I will say this and then I plan on removing myself from this argument altogether. Mr. Rayment, you keep referring to the purpose of evolution. You speak as though evolution were an assembly line constantly trying to create the "perfect" being. This is not how it works. Evolution is simply the process through which organisms survive. It would be ridiculous for nature (or humans) to kill off bacteria because it's less fit. In fact, bacteria is one of the essential components of life today. Bacteria, in various forms decompose wastes, aid in digestion, and strengthen our immune systems through contact (a controversial theory, but one that I think has some merit). The idea that anything is "less fit" and needs to be killed off is a complete mischaracterization of what evolution stands for. Evolution and survival of the fittest does not mean that everything that isn't perfect needs to be killed, it simply states that more desirable traits are passed on, while less desirable traits are eliminated. A great example of this is Hemophilia(sp?) before the days of intervention by medicine, a person struck with this had little chance to survive, as they would likely pass on before they were able to successfully reproduce. These days, thanks to modern medicine, they survive and the trait continues. Evolution does not say that we should kill or forcibly sterilize all hemophiliacs to "cleanse" the gene pool, but that without scientific intervention, the trait would not have survived as long as it has. (of course the fact that Hemophilia is carried by females and can only be contracted by males is a different story entirely) NateE Let Us Communicate 11:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Philip, a few things. I'll number them so it's easy to respond.
1) To quote you earlier on this page:
"In the evolutionary story, natural selection selects for improvements provided by mutations. In the creationary view, natural selection removes defects and selects from existing information."
In other words, for you the key difference between natural selection and evolution is the presence of mutations. However mutations have nothing to do with racism and therefore you seem to be objecting to the racism of something that creationists actually accept - natural selection. This is not a logical fallacy but I want to make sure that this is indeed your position.
2) Evolution (or natural selection) does not insist that all well-adapted creatures should go around destroying the others. It is to do with the observation that well-adapted organisms ('superior' ones, if you like) have greater survival chances than less well-adapted organisms. There is nothing prescriptive about it.
"...the point is that evolution is supposed to get rid of the less-fit, which means that there must be living things that are less fit, that need to be eliminated."
They do not need to be eliminated, there is no desire for elimination - selective pressures on biological environments result in some organisms being more successful than others, and some of the less successful ones become extinct. That is the sad, amoral reality. It is not something evolutionary theory demands, it is something it describes.
3) You have mentioned several times the racism or implied racism of evolutionary scientists and supporters of evolution. The veracity of this claim is completely irrelevant to what the theory itself is concerned with. Perhaps Darwin was a racist - this does not make evolution a racist theory. SamN's point that it's like saying Lutheranism is anti-Semitic because of Luther's anti-Semitism is an excellent analogy, and one you did not really address.
"Perhaps Hitler was going a little beyond evolution to classify the Jews as inferior, but he was being entirely consistent with many other people, including evolutionary scientists, in considering some "races" superior to others."
No doubt he was being consistent with the views of a number of bakers, accountants, and (for that matter) Christians as well, but the fact is that you have yet to demonstrate why evolution is a racist theory (or how any scientific theory can be inherently racist) and no number of racist quotes from Darwin or anybody else will change this.
--Sam99foster 15:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I've taken a while to respond to these last two posts, because I've been writing a separate page to explain my point of view on this issue. So please see user:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution. For the rest of this post, I'll answer points that are not covered by that page.

I agree that it would be ridiculous for bacteria to be killed off. But I agree because I don't believe in evolution; because I believe that God created bacteria for a purpose, and because biology (not evolution) shows that they are very useful. None of this, however, means that evolution says that they shouldn't be killed off. Okay, evolution doesn't actually say that bacteria should be killed off, any more than it says that Jews should be killed off. But what it does say is that if a "more fit" species (e.g. man) kills off a "less fit" species (bacteria) (and if man succeeds, it means that man is "more fit"), then that is entirely okay within the evolutionary viewpoint. Similarly, if a "more fit" "race" (Aryans) kills off a "less fit" race (Jews) (and if they succeed, it means that the Aryans are "more fit"), then that is entirely okay within the evolutionary viewpoint. The fact that is is not okay is really an argument that evolution is wrong.

Evolution does, to some extent at least, require that the less fit be killed off. If some members of a given population acquire some new characteristic, the only way for this characteristic to be selected is for the ones without the characteristic to be deselected, or killed off. If the ones without the characteristic are not eliminated, then you retain the less fit version and there is no evolution. "Survival of the fittest" means that the less fit do not survive. If they do, then you don't have evolution.

For creationists, natural selection is a conservative process (not to be confused with "conservative" as an ideology), because it conserves the gene pool by eliminating those that have sufficiently-bad defects. It puts a brake on the gene pool going downhill. For evolutionists, natural selection is an innovative process, whereby new information is added to the gene pool (via mutations providing the new information and natural selection selecting those mutations). It causes the gene poole to go uphill. So the key difference is not the presence of mutations, but the direction of genetic change.

I didn't respond to the case of Lutheranism because it was essentially correct. That is, to the extent that Lutheranism is something distinct from Christianity. It is really a branch of Christianity, and Christianity is not inherently anti-Semitic, so it is quite understandable that Lutheranism would reform aspects of itself that were at odds with Christianity, but to the extent that it doesn't, the charge would be applicable.

Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

This is section is getting a bit long... anywhere else we can move it to? Anyway, Sticking strictly to the thread I started, there is still the mistaken conclusion that Evolution says that anything being "killed off" by another entity is ok. Evolution simply states that organisms that cannot adapt quickly to new environments will be killed off. That doesn't mean it's ok, nor does it mean it's bad. Evolution, for the most part, doesn't care. Evolution states that, without interference, organisms will constantly be forced to adapt changes to their environment or they will be killed, which ultimately creates changes in species. For example, purely hypothetical, if a "prey" type animal, say a rabbit, delevoped some new trait that protected it from carnivores, such as invisability (again, this is obviously a hypthetical, intentionally improbable) the next link in the food chain (be they Owls or Coyotes or Wolves or whathaveyou) have to find some way to adapt to that. Most likely, they would turn their attention to the rabbits without this particular trait. Eventually, all non invisable rabbits would be killed off, simply because they couldn't adapt. There is a radical difference from a natuarlly occurring mutation leading to a drastic change in the base traits of a species and artificially "aiding" evolution by killing people.
I would also like to point out that, under your model of creationist/evolutionist natural selection, Hitler was following the creationist model by exterminating the Jewish people and trying to stop the gene pool from going "downhill." If he was an evolutionist, he would have attempted to genetically alter the German people to give them some kind of superpowered advantage. NateE Let Us Communicate 13:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
If evolution "doesn't care", then it must be okay! And that's one of the points I made on my evolution page—that evolution means that there are no restrictions on this sort of thing. If a child asks his father if he can go fishing, and his father says that he doesn't care, that is tacitly saying that it's okay. Conversely, even if Hitler was trying to stop the gene pool going downhill (which is not the way he looked at it), then it is still contrary to the creationary model because that creationary model includes the idea that murder is wrong. Philip J. Rayment
Two major issues with this. One, yes, a human father say I don't care is saying yes. However, evolution is not a human being capable of making distinctions and judgments. Evolution is a force that has no emotional stake in the outcome. Also, you are speaking in circles. You claim that creationists think the gene pool needs to be protected (my word) and prevented from sliding downhill. The logical extension of that is "if we can, we should intervene and prevent the pool from declining," but then you say that it's not creationist to do it because we teach that murder is wrong (although that certainly gets ignored a lot). NateE Let Us Communicate 12:52, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
I think Nate hits the nail right on the head here. Evolution is not a concious being that makes judgments. Saying it is "okay" with the idea of killing off species is like saying gravity is okay with the idea of throwing people over tall cliffs. All it says if that you do, they will fall (and likely die). For another example of how evolution works, consider what would happen if the earth were to suddenly be submerged in water. Humans would not last very long, as they are not adapted to this environment. Sure, a number could live on boats for a while, but life would become so difficult that many would die off, and the boats would eventually rot and decay. So we have an environment that humans are not well adapted to, and not fit to survive in. Does that mean it would be "okay" to go around drowning people now? Or that "evolution says" we should? Does this mean humans are "less evolved" than fish? Reynard 13:06, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
I've already answered those main points made by NateE and Reynard, here.
As far as supposedly "speaking in circles", no I'm not. Killing off those with genetic defects is not the only way to stop things going downhill. Another way is fixing the defects. That may not be something we are capable of yet, but in principle it's a way of stopping things going downhill that doesn't involve murder.
Philip J. Rayment 11:29, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Please remove baseless "Obama is muslim" article from the Main Page

Or else defend it on the debate page Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim? MickA 17:49, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

But just last week Obama let it slip and essentially admitted he is a Muslim! What's there to defend? --DRamon 21:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Please see the debate page. MickA 08:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Time to open up the Evolution article

When posts such as this and this go largely unanswered and ignored it is time for a rethink.

The theory of evolution article has been locked for something like 18 months and has been overwhelmingly edited by a single editor. Is this a wiki or a blog? It is time to open the article up to other editors who have an interest in the topic. A failure to do so gives the impression that the arguments pushed by that single editor just cannot stand up to scrutiny by others and only remain because the page is locked to anyone who has a clue. --Horace42 18:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't see what the problem is. You can "answer" those posts you link to on the talk page. If any meaningful change suggestions come out of a discussion I am sure a sysop will be happy to modify the page itself. --DRamon 21:17, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Um, the problem is that I have no wish to answer those posts (I'm not sure what your inverted commas around "answer" were supposed to mean, by the way). I agree with them. The problem is that they already contain multiple suggestions for change which have been ignored. Further, the fact that a sysop could modify the page is not really a justification for the page remaining locked, is it? --Horace42 21:41, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
I am not going to engage in further discussion with you on here as I am new to CP and don't wish to violate the 90/10 rule. Perhaps some others can enlighten you. I'm going to go edit some more articles in the meantime and I recommend you do the same. Cheers --DRamon 21:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Really, well I am not new to CP. Coincidentally, I started as an editor here (Horace) on the same day as He Who Controls the Evolution Article. --Horace42 23:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Despite the fact that I would like to see this article unlocked, I do not think that it is a good idea to do so. I would guess that nearly 100% of people who go to this website look at that page, since it is easily one of the most controversial topics of our time, and this site's view on it is, um, rather unpopular. I cannot imagine the amount of vandalism that page would receive if it was unlocked. Is there any way that we could implement MediaWiki's autoconfirm feature (1, 2) to require, say, 200 edits and 3 weeks experience to be autoconfirmed? That way, you would be able to protect pages, and still allow more than a handful of people to edit them. Samd 22:17, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That strikes me as an excellent idea. I'll go mention it to the boss. --Horace 20:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I would suggest a higher ceiling, personally. 200 edits is fairly easy to do. I would say at least half a ton. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Minor inaccuracy

I don't know if pointing this out will help get this fixed, but "failed liberal radio network Air America" is inaccurate. They are still in business. Human 20:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

They are only still in business because rich donors are artificially keeping them afloat instead of the network being funded by advertisers. These clowns just can't accept that there is simply no money to be made from the farthest of the far left listeners. Jinxmchue 19:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

How they are still in business is irrelevant. They still are, the main page says they aren't, thus the main page is inaccurate. Pretty cut and dry it seems. --AndrasK 19:19, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Is she really conservative?

Is Sarah Palin really the conservative that conservapedia says she is?

--Double Edge 09:19, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Environmentalism is a religion?

The Environmentalism headline is pretty weak. Since when does one picture of an environmentalist praying mean that environmentalism is therefore a religion (you are aware that some environmentalists are Christian, and therefore pray to the Christian God, aren't you?)? Would a picture of a truck driver praying mean that Teamsterism is a religion? There's not even a story to go along with the picture. I can't tell if it's supposed to be a joke or not. BrianH 09:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That's what I was thinking when I saw it. How does the contributor know who the guy is praying to? I notice that the main page at least removed the "photographic proof" part.--Frey 10:12, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I saw this last night after the ability to edit was deactivated and couldn't wait to say something about this. Both the comments above are perfect criticisms of this. Even if it is supposed to be a joke, how is it supposed to be trustworthy or encyclopedic (I really hope the site can start living up to it's own branding here)??? I mean, is the Conservapedia main page just going to start turning into a blog aggregator, and basically a proxy for people who aren't bound (OKAY, obligated to be bound) by the same code of net ethics as Conservapedia? Plus, a lot of what the breaking news section has to say anymore isn't even stated accurately. They just mirror the (often inaccurate) titles of the links and only after tons of people criticize the wording do they even begin to change it around. Honestly, I think the breaking news section would be more helpful if it wasn't just the "Liberal Bloopers of the Day" section. I mean, how can you put "Environmentalism is a Religion" in the NEWS section and have anybody take this site seriously? They even emphasize the "is" so you know you can(?) really(?) trust(?) it. Besides, lower case R in religion, right? OtherSide 10:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
No reply, I see. Hardly surprising, given this site's adherence to widely discredited stories such as the Palin teleprompter "fail," the cub scout bus "attack," and the promotion of the silly "liberalism causes insanity" fairy tale, to name but a few. Well, I tried. BrianH 09:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, they're cowards. Check the Bobby Jindal talk page for more Conservapedia bloopers. OtherSide 16:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


How do I post news items on the main page? I wanted to add this story, but I can't seem to edit it. DemocratsForMccain 11:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Join the News project. Add your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestions|here]]. --DeanStalk 12:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Garofalo Story

I was a little confused about why this is on the front page? This is a comedian and well known liberal saying something nasty and mean spirited about Conservatives. Why is this considered news? Garofalo has always had an outspoken character and she has constantly made remarks similar to what she said on the program. A bigger concern, however, is why the other story is linked, saying her associates.... Are we claiming that Garafalo was responsible for a silly name change in England? Or is the point that she's a liberal, they're liberal, so their actions are interchangable? NateE Let Us Communicate 11:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Atheist "conversion attempt" on Christian

The man charged in the case is a nutjob who was clearly harassing her in an unbalanced way, and for him to claim it was an attempt to change her beliefs is a pathetic attempt at evading responsibility. That said, anyone portraying his actions as a legitimate attempt to convert someone's beliefs is being deceitful, no matter what the article states. --DinsdaleP 16:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Welcome back Dinsdale, and I agree. This man has some serious issues that need to be addressed. It seems his Atheist views are becomming his twinkie defense. Sadly, people like that simply make all others look bad by association. Just as overzealous street preachers hurt the cause of Christianity (or Islam, The black muslims are infuriatingly aggressive) people blaming their mental hangups on atheism are just passing the buck. NateE Let Us Communicate 14:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
But of course any "nutjob" who does something bizarre in the name of converting people to Christianity is the real deal, right? Jinxmchue 15:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps this is just an example supporting the theory that there is a link between atheism and mental illness --DRamon 16:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Jinx, instead of just watching you resort to blubbery rhetorical questions here, may I suggest you file them in Debate Topics? Secondly, yes, DRamon, that's clearly what's going on here. Conservapedia comes up with theories such as that, and THEN, and only THEN, does it start to search for evidence, flimsy as it may be, to support it. Such "examples" can thus be trumpeted as the latest epitome of the "Liberalism Is (insert bad thing here) Theory". It's kind of like the global warming conspiracy, except without any of the people having credentials and it's got a lot more to do with making people retarded. OtherSide 16:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I won't get into discussion regarding DRamon and Otherside's comments, I think they're having their own discussion. To Jinx, I did not say that. In fact, I said that any street preacher who harrasses people in a bid to convert them only hurts Christianity, just as this guy claiming an Atheist conversion makes all other atheists look bad by comparison. It's a well known Psychology principle that people natually fear groups they don't relate to. When that fear is there, it's very easy to make a judgment of them based on hearsay and conjecture. When Birth of a Nation was released, a lot of people commented on how this movie "opened their eyes" to the behavior of blacks, even though the movie was complete fiction. My point is not that any nutjob who claim Christianity as a defense is real, but simply that when people adopt those defenses, they only reinforce negative sterotypes. NateE Let Us Communicate 16:35, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I tend to stick to the basics with cases like these. When a deranged nut does something awful, it really doesn't matter what beliefs they profess to be the driver for their actions - in the end, it's simply because the person is a deranged nut. --DinsdaleP 23:40, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Constitution Day

The answer is: yes, but not enough. Some of us are trying to improve that, though.

In my experience, schools observe the letter of the law concerning Constitution Day, but typically go no further than that. Social Studies classes present lessons related to the Constitution, in accordance with the law, while many other teachers are completely unaware that such a law exists, and that's a shame.

Now, granted, it would be tough to build really substantial math lessons around the Constitution, and probably at least somewhat difficult to do the same with science, but English classes, at least, can easily take up the gauntlet; we're only talking about one of the most important written documents in history. --Benp 16:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

My school does pretty well. They have posters everywhere that say constitution day: Ask a history teacher <question like who is protected by the constitution? When was the constitution day written?>. During lunch you could go to the history wing and hang out and talk about the constitution, eat cake, and take a quiz to see how much you know about it. They don't go over the top, but it's certainly recognized. --AndrasK 19:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that there are certain ironies in a government-mandated observation of the document meant to protect us from oppresive government mandates. Some even argue that Constitution Day is itself unconstitutional, since not observing it can be punished by revoking federal funding, leading to what amounts to forced speech. Just some food for thought. HelpJazz 20:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Painting Masterpieces - Conservapedia

Our article is number 28 in Google among 302,000.


--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that's excellent. And even better on my Google search: we're number 9 for "Painting Masterpieces" for my search.--Aschlafly 07:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
While that is interesting, how many people in Mexico, a Spanish speaking country, would google Painting Masterpieces, an English phrase? The same goes for atheism for Google Cuba-Why search "atheism" when you (as a Cuban) know it as "ateísmo" --Konstanty 20:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
So obvious that no comment is necessary. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:45, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin's Email Account

I hope the people behind this are caught and prosecuted as swiftly as possible. Whether or not Palin used the account for questionable purposes is irrelevant - the right for people to have personal communications without fear of illegal eavesdropping is more important and needs to be protected. My only negative comment about Palin in this matter is that government-related communications need to stay on secured government systems. The Bush administration set a dangerous precedent in its use of RNC email accounts by Karl Rove and others to discuss matters they did not want to be subject to FIA search or subpoena. When Palin's use of personal email accounts for some governing-related communications is mentioned in Alaska newspapers, it's going to make those accounts an inviting target for hacker groups like Anonymous. --DinsdaleP 08:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

This incident is an excellent example of liberals' hypocrisy. For years, they have bellowed about privacy rights (particularly when it comes to people being investigated for ties to terrorism), yet when it comes to a Republican, well, their concern for such rights just flies out the nearest window. It suddenly becomes quite acceptable for them to hack a Republican's email account and post the information within all over the internet. Nice, guys. Jinxmchue 10:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
This assumes the people who did this are privacy rights advocates, and since we don't know who they are, we can't say what their opinions are. It's not like hacking into email accounts is a thing liberals in general do, and since I haven't seen anyone defending it, we can't really call liberals in general hypocrites for this (any liberal who does defend it would be a hypocrite, I agree). It was a crime, pure and simple. No one blames conservatives as a group when Obama gets death threats. TomG 10:19, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
If the hacker who did it isn't a privacy rights advocate, the liberals who posted the information on their websites are. And what planet are you living on to think that all conservatives don't get blamed when the Obamessiah gets death threats? Have you never read DailyKos, Democrat Underground, Huffington Post or the like? Jinxmchue 10:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
No, I actually have never read those blogs (well, I may have seen a column or two at some point), but if you have can you provide links to article in which they blame conservatives as a whole for threats on Obama (and by that I mean more than merely describing a suspect as "conservative")? If you can, I, for one, will denounce them (for all the good it will do). TomG 11:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Michelle Malkin has a copy of a message the hacker responsible left to explain his actions. In it, he admits he was hoping to find something incriminating to derail her campaign: "I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor... And pictures of her family." Jinxmchue 11:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

The hacking group which claimed responsibility, Anonymous, is not what I'd call a "liberal" group at all, despite claims to the contrary, and they are definitely not privacy-right activists. This story describes them a little more realistically. --DinsdaleP 11:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Anonymous has no affiliation. It has no organization. There is no leader, and anyone could be a member. It is completely chaotic and amorphous, if anything you could call them anarchists, but that would still be a stretch.--IanG 13:12, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Yet the person responsible has stated his goal was to hurt Gov. Palin. I don't see anyone trying to hurt the Obamessiah in this manner. Do you? Jinxmchue 14:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Jinx, let me see if I understand your logic. You say that democrats are privacy advocates, okay with you so far. But then you call liberal's hypocritical for releasing information on left-wing blogs that is already in the public domain? Relaying information does not mean you agree or are defending it. If that were true, you could call Fox news a conservative traitor for discussing the Craig airport scandal. Reporting the facts of a story and any information in the public domain does not provide any insight to what an organization's viewpoint on a subject is; it is just the standard purpose of the news media. --AndrasK 16:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
So, if someone handed you goods that you knew were stolen, you'd have no problem selling them to profit yourself and/or your causes? Jinxmchue 14:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
While we may disagree with what the websites have done with that information, they are still protected via the 1st amendment, as long as they were not involved with procuring this information, and from what I understand about anonymous, they would not work with the press in matters such as these. --Konstanty 10:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

My account was blocked and deleted


My original account under the name Carolyn was deleted accusing me of being a sock. I cannot contact the sysop (Karajou) who deleted it because he has not enabled the email and has locked his talk page. I use TOR for the self defense of online privacy - so some others at some time will use the same IP. Please block me for any vandalism or actions not in the interest of the encyclopedia, but not for protecting myself online. So please unblock my account. I am sorry I had to make a sock for this, as there was no other way. --Carolyn2 10:03, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

There was another way. The registration page (which you used to create the second account) says not to make a second account, and directs you to Conservapedia:Editor's guide#If you get blocked where is says to contact another administrator if you can't contact the person who blocked you. Philip J. Rayment 10:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
This seems to happen quite often. Perhaps it would be a good policy that anybody with blocking rights should enable their email. HelpJazz 12:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
All editors are supposed to have e-mail enabled, although some editors joined before this was a requirement. And some reportedly have had trouble getting it to work. Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to strike out my last question, assume that your account was compromised through TOR, and restore it. Karajou 13:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Thank you all for your help. Karajou thank you for unblocking me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carolyn (talk)

Mini Main Page News Section

It's curious that there's not been any Main Page News attention paid to the enormous turbulence happening in the global financial markets at present - in any other news medium, regardless of political leaning, it's the No.1 story at the moment. While many of the issues are probably too complex for this venue, there's no denying there's great complexities for those of both liberal and conservative members of the public. Prime amongst them is the incredibly rapid nationalization of the financial markets, which has the US Government now owning about half of all the property in the country (through the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and also the insurance against those mortgages (AIG). With the government now very definitely in a socialistic property ownership situation, it's surprising not to see much comment here on Conservapedia about the issue, no? BenHur 14:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Do we really need this liberal whinging? The number 1 story at the moment, contrary to what the Chicken Little MSM would have you believe, is the strength of our workers who represent the most fundemental part of the economy. Take this claptrap somewhere else. CElderman 19:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

American workers, with their skill, ingenuity and resilience, are no doubt amongst the hardest workers in this global economy. Having said this, the fundamentals of the economy are not the workers; the fundamentals are tied to unemployment rates, consumer spending, federal debt, energy costs, etc. The economy is in serious trouble at the moment, it is reflected in the markets and the real economy. Why do you consider it liberal whining to address it?--Claypool 21:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Indeed. CElderman - it would be unwise to consider the biggest financial meltdown in recent history to be a 'liberal thing'. You can rest assured many conservatives and Conservapedians will have had their retirement investments severely damaged in the past two weeks. My point was - how come it's not being discussed? I'd be interested in reading conservative opinions on the matter, I genuinely would- this is difficult for all of us. BenHur 22:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
We are not even in a recession. GDP 3% growth month after month. 96% of the mortgages- PAID ON TIME.-- 50 star flag.png jp 22:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, though, I do see an important message in the current financial turmoil--fiscal responsibility. This problem was caused, bluntly, by people borrowing more than they could repay and trying to live on credit. Surely the lesson to be learned here is one of personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism? --Benp 22:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, jp. I was at the Wal-Mart the other day and the average american worker is doing just fine. In fact, they were sold out of the plasma screen tv that I was going to purchase. Guess that I'm just going to have to wait a week before using my credit card to pump up American economy. AS IF IT NEEDED ANY PUMPING! Anyone who is really paying attention (i.e not relyingon the BIASED MSM!) can see that the jerks being affected are the Harvard and other liberal university egghead graduates that failed when they applied their book learning to the real world of real money.CElderman 22:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I salute your fantastic optimism, but it seems the Republican Presidential candidate doesn't. His suggestion today (reported by non-MSM Fox News) that he would fire the SEC Chairman Chris Cox, another Republican, came as a surprise to many. And the Wall St. Journal, normally known as a staunchly conservative organ, describes the crisis today as the greatest financial makeover in the US financial markets since the 1930's. BenHur 23:00, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Your sarcasm is noted, but you prove my point for me. According to his biography, Cox received and MBA and law degree from Harvard. HE EVEN TAUGHT THERE!!!! The #1 candidate is right to get rid of him. This just shows further how liberal our current leaders are. WE NEED TO RETURN TO WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED FOR THIS GREAT COUNTRY!!!! The socialist stuff that we are currently subject to is ridiculous. Oh, and I almost forgot, the Wall St. Journal, as part of the MSM is too leftwing for me. You might want to open your eyes to World Net Daily. And oh also like the Wall Streeet journal doesn't have their own selfineteres in mind here?!??! Yeah right. Wall Street is just complaining so that OUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT will give them more $$$$.CElderman 23:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Isn't a government debt of 9.7 trillion something the average American worker should be worried about? Shouldn't we be worried about billions of taxpayer dollars in bailouts? Remember, these bailouts aren't just affecting the high-brow liberal institutions. AIG is the biggest insurance company in America. Washington Mutual is the biggest savings and loans bank in America. What happens if they go under? Also, what about record high oil and food prices? They affect the average worker. What about high unemployment? Surely that is a problem. Perhaps the biggest concern is the value of the dollar, which is plummeting as the Fed prints endless sums of money and the Republican President and Democratic Congress continue to spend outrageous sums of money. Remember, if the value of the dollar drops past a certain point, we won't be able to borrow money from other countries... and we'll have to default on our current loans, which would bankrupt the country.--Claypool 23:30, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Indeed so - and the US debt is about to soar to over $11 trillion under this new Act they'll bring in next week. BenHur 21:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, whatever one's opinion of the matter, the 'free market' certainly became a lot less free this morning. Now, in addition to the nationalization of mortgages and mortgage insurance, short selling has been banned. Interesting times indeed. BenHur 13:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservative financial blogger Barry Ritholtz describes today's decisions bluntly - "The deregulation movement is now an historical footnote, just another interest group, and once in power they turned into socialists. Indeed, judging by the actions of the conservatives in power, and not the empty rhetoric that comes out of think tanks, the conservative movement has effectively turned the United States into a massive Socialist state, an appendage of Communist Russia, China and Venezuela"[4]. BenHur 13:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

If I understand CElderman and jp correctly, they are saying that the economy is doing fine and American workers aren't in any financial trouble. Boy, I wish that were true in this part of the country! In these parts we are having a lot of difficulty making ends meet, and I'm not talking about intellectuals and Harvard grads. Jobs are hard to come by, and self-employed and small-business folks (the majority of folks here) have made less money than at this time last year and every expense item has gone up. Plus, winter is coming, and my monthly budget fuel bill was raised 65%. Those folks who actually have any pensions have seen their value reduced a lot; they are hoping that might get corrected over the next 1-2 years. I won't bother to relate how much the value of our modest homes has declined. Fortunately this is not one of the high-foreclosure areas; we are a fairly responsible bunch. Anyway, CElderman and jp, I'm glad life is so rosy where you live. Have some empathy, though; lots and lots of Americans, many of them conservative, are facing tough times. The current financial situation is scary, no matter which angle you view it from.--Leansleft 13:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Leansleft, our nation's debts are the Achilles of freedom and security. How much do we pay OPEC for gas we have right here? Billions upon billions. Who wants to add healthcare for everybody to a 11 Trillion debt? Savings and Loan was a disaster too, but America always gets through. Unless we are now too dependent on China and others because of wealth redistribution.--50 star flag.png jp 06:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

It would be a very foolish Republican or Democrat who would describe the coming $1 trillion Government bailout of bad debt as trivial, irrelevant news. BenHur 18:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I find it increasingly odd that you would, for example, consider the item about some complex internal battles at the UN over stories like this one at the same website, the text of the financial rescue Bill planned next week, or this -"this idea that unfettered capitalism is the way to go has finally been put to rest.". The Bill itself is astonishing - "The Secretary is authorized to assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States....Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and ...may not be reviewed by any court of law or ... agency." No review possible - that sound you hear is the sound of the Totalitarian State Front Doorbell. All this to the tune of $700 billion. The death of capitalism? Perhaps not, but it's certainly the death of free markets, and it certainly is the beginning of a new era of extreme Federal involvement in the lives of every citizen. Strange days indeed. And stranger yet - no comment on it here whatsoever? BenHur 21:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

At one extreme we have unfettered capitalism, and at the other, total socialism. But in between there is a lot of middle ground. Although I'm a believer in capitalism, I also believe in some regulation. The real question is, how much? I think Australia has it close to right, and it looks like the U.S. has had too little in some areas. Because of this, it's gotten into trouble and has to become drastically more "socialist" to overcome the crisis. But although this may be the short term situation, I can't see the U.S. being socialist in the long term, although neither am I saying that it will return to the same minimal regulation that it's had.

Yes, much of the problem is people not taking personal responsibility for their own finances, and borrowing more than they could afford. However, the flow-on affect has consequences for many other people. Here in Oz I'm now having to pay more on my mortgage because interest rates have gone up partly because the banks here (adequately regulated and not in danger of collapse) have to recover losses that they've incurred because some of their funds were invested in the American financial markets. Compared to many Americans, I'm still doing well, and I'm not really complaining, but simply pointing out that the financial crisis has effects well beyond those directly involved in it, and this is one reason why the industry needs to be adequately regulated.

Philip J. Rayment 05:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I know I'm really just having this conversation with myself, as no-one here seems remotely interested apart form you PJR, but I am at least glad to see that the Democrats have wrangled some sense out of the proposed Act and it will apparently not have such totalitarian powers for the Treasury Secretary in the next revision. Thank you Democrats! Meanwhile McCain bleats on about the situation with great ignorance. Hardly surprising for a man who came 894 of a class of 899 in the US Naval Academy. BenHur 17:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really the only person here interested in this, the biggest news story of our generation? It seems so. Nevertheless, that won't stop me making my own mini-Main Page News hereNow, Republicans too are lining up against the proposed Act. Given the extraordinary nature of the way this Bill was presented, it'll be amazing if everyone manages to agree on it. If they don't, woe betide all of us, liberals and conservatives both. BenHur 18:09, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Go Mr. Trump!

I'm glad that such an upstanding leader in American society as Donald Trump has the integrity to declare his support for John McCain. To me his choice in the election clearly seems to be a selfless act of principle. A man so set on making money would not usually support the candidate who doesn't support continuing flawed policies that have widened America's division of wealth. Oh wait... Rockthecasbah 22:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

To me, his choice was..."Who does Rosey like?" "I'll take the opposite, thanks."-- 50 star flag.png jp 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Taxpayer money to fund research into World of Warcraft

A Professor has won 100000$ in grant from National Science Foundation to research World of Warcraft. Surely, Taxpayer money could be put to better use? Is this suitable for our news section?--Carolyn 08:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It is a study about China and its society. Know thy enemy etc. --CrossC 08:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Christian beliefs promote rationalism

Baylor/Gallup study:

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.


Once this gets on the front page, a lot of [ir]rational heads will explode. Jinxmchue 18:47, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention the atheists, Jinx: 'those who believe in nothing, will believe in anything'. Nice work! Bugler 18:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

They're in there: "the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations" Jinxmchue 18:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Jinxmchue, if you move this to the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|New Suggestions]] page, I will post it. --DeanStalk 19:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Ja wol! (Oops. Maybe I shouldn't say that since I'm "a known racist.") Jinxmchue 19:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Hey, what do you mean by "known racist"? Is that a sarcastic reference to something (what?)? I don't want to contribute to a racist wiki. Thank you. --BillB 12:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
'Irreligious' seems like a broad and vague category.Decemberist 12:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain's win odds fairly steady

So far, the betting market has not responded to all the poor polling coming out for McCain this past few days. His win probability is down, but only slightly - to 41% from 43% last week. See here for update. -- Ferret Nice old chat 22:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Proofing the Main Page

Grammar, yet again.

Evolutionists claim another scalp—one of their own—as the Michael Reiss, Director of Education of the Royal Society is sacked for suggesting that schools ought to teach students about creationism. Please change this by removing "the". --Hsmom 10:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. --DeanStalk 10:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry about that. I originally wrote it as "the Director of Education", then decided I ought to put his name in, and managed to stuff it up. Philip J. Rayment 10:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
No sweat - I figured it was something like that. No one is perfect. --Hsmom 10:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Plagarism Concern

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians. This is a quote taken word-for-word from the source article. While a citation to the article is given, it's still important to indicate that the text above is a direct quote, rather than a summary written by a Conservapedia editor. Please fix this. --Hsmom 10:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. --DeanStalk 10:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

More Grammar

Although I am a Democrat, I recognize that it’s more important to put country ahead of party and that’s why I support John Although I am a Democrat, I recognize that it’s more important to put country ahead of party and that’s why I support John McCain." She said. "She said" should be part of the previous sentence. Please change it to: McCain," she said. Thanks. --Hsmom 10:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. --DeanStalk 10:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Prepositional Phrases

Just in case anyone thought he was dead, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. OK, I'm going to ignore the Just in case anyone thought he was dead part. The second part of the sentence should read Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that, for wealthier Americans, paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do. That is, paying taxes is not done FOR wealthier Americans, it's done BY wealthier Americans. See what I mean? (Oh - and I realize I probably should have started a section called "Proofing the Main Page" rather than several small sections - I didn't realize how many errors I'd find. Sorry.) --Hsmom 10:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. --DeanStalk 10:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
You know one of the good things about a Wiki? You can change it! "Proofing the Main Page" is now a section! Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Comma Use

"This is a shocking invasion of the Alaska Governor's privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them" the McCain campaign said. There should be a comma after "them" (before the quotation mark). I'm really not a grammar expert or anything - just noticing some errors this morning. --Hsmom 10:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I say that it should be after the quotation mark, but then this is an American encyclopedia, and you Americans have funny rules! :-) Philip J. Rayment 10:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Philip J. Rayment, I agree! If I was in charge of making up the rules, it would be after the quotation mark! Before the quotation mark makes no sense to me. It drives me crazy every time I have to make myself do it the American way. --Hsmom 10:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Fixed. --DeanStalk 10:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Period at the end of a sentence?

Atheist's bizarre bid to convert a Christian [23] This is not actually a sentence, but several other entries like this include a period at the end (before the reference), so I think this one needs a period too. --Hsmom 10:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

No capitalization after semi-colon?

Poll shows radical shift in November expectations; More people now think John McCain will win in November: [24] Generally speaking, you don't capitalize a word after a semi-colon. While this is more of a headline/phrase type of thing rather than a full sentence, I still think "More" should be lower case, though I am open to discussion of this. Note also that this shows a third way of ending a brief blurb - not with a period, not with nothing, but with a colon. I think a period should be the standard, but I'd again be open to discussion. Either way, there should be a standard format. --Hsmom 10:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Canadian Babies

Statistics reveal that 80-90% of Canadian and approximately 95 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome in England and Spain are aborted. As written, this sentence implies that 80-90% of Canadian babies are aborted. Sort of - it's kind of a mess. How about 80-90% of Canadian babies with Down syndrome are aborted. In the US, it's an estimated 84-91%, in England, 94%, and in Spain, 95%. Not perfect, maybe someone else can take a stab at it.--Hsmom 11:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Word Usage

Pope Benedict XVI is advocating Catholics to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. He said at a church service Monday that people should accept death "at the hour chosen by God." Either the Pope is advocating urging Catholics to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, or he is advocating that Catholics to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.--Hsmom 11:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. --DeanStalk 11:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Word Usage II

To liberals and those in the media, conservative opposition possess a dangerous threat to them. Because of this, Democrats and the media propagate caricatures about conservatives. This results in the left's large comprehension gap. Do they possess a threat? Or pose one? --Hsmom 12:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. --DeanStalk 12:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Verb Tense Agreement

Are you a fan of Conservapedia and want some suggestions for letting more people know about Conservapedia? One fix would be Are you a fan of Conservapedia? Do you and want some suggestions for letting more people know about Conservapedia? --Hsmom 12:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't see any problem with the original here, mom. The 'do you' is implicit. Bugler 12:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm, perhaps, but it's better fixed, which I've now done (in a different way; is it okay?). Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the attention to detail, Mom

Each of those corrections may seem minor, but collectively they improve the professional appearance of the site. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 13:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed! ;) Bugler 13:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, THAT was ironic, wasn't it? --DinsdaleP 13:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Question re Federal Funds & Education

A main page article states Sept. 17 was U.S. Constitution Day, and public schools are required to recognize it. Do they? But reading the source, I'm not clear that this law applies to K-12 public schools. Do they get Federal funds directly from the DOE? Or are the funds given to the states to be distributed locally? Is a "local educational agency" a public school? Or does that refer more to an administrative level? Here is the text that made me question this:

Section 111(b) states "[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution." For purposes of the Department's implementation of this requirement, "educational institutions" includes but is not limited to "local educational agencies" and "institutions of higher education" receiving Federal funding from the Department. Section 111 applies to all educational institutions receiving Federal funding, not only those receiving Federal funding from the Department. However, the Department's authority only extends to those educational institutions receiving funding from the Department, and consequently the Department can only regulate with regard to those institutions.

If this article is to stay on the main page, it needs further fact-checking to be sure it applies to K-12 public schools. --Hsmom 10:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The year 2009 A.D.

Please have one of the admins fix this "news". Something along the lines of, "2009 marks the sesquicentennial of two notable Darwinian..."
The section about Conservapedia's internal decisions about what belongs "In the News" section doesn't really make it as "news". Marge 19:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Also, as Marge's edit summary said, the first page visitors see is frequently the main page. Is keeping an aggressive picture of Hitler permanently on the front page to welcome potential new users for the next fifteen months really such a great idea? Sideways 20:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Given past experience, I am pretty sure our opinion counts for about nothing, especially when it comes to user Conservative. There's no point in arguing against it.--IanG 20:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Give a dog a bad name.... Yes, there's nothing like slandering a well-respected editor for something he hasn't done! Bugler 09:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I do believe he has done whatever he wanted to do despite other users asking for him to do otherwise. It's not slander if it's true. --IanG 13:28, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I must admit we haven't chatted much, so perhaps I just don't have a grasp of your patois. Which well-respected editor hasn't done what? Aziraphale 12:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
According to IanG Conservative wonn't listen to whatever argument IanG and Sideways have not yet put, because that's the way conservatives are. I should add this technique to Liberal tricks if it isn't already there! Bugler 16:40, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
No, that's the way the user conservative is. Though I better stop now before I get called a maggot.--IanG 17:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded it a little and moved it to the left side. Philip J. Rayment 07:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives more jumpy than liberals

Seams there is a new study which suggest that conservatives would be more easily frightened and that would allso explain their attitudes towards for example gun control etc. link. HeikkiL 21:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

A "study" of just forty-six people - forty-six! - is hardly trustworthy. I'm not surprised at all that the people crowing about it are conveniently overlooking that rather important point. Jinxmchue 09:02, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Well spotted, Jinx. Bugler 09:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Maybe if the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions to Obama's campaign is going to be mentioned, we should mention the contributions to McCain's campaign too: . McCain received 169,000$ and Obama received 16,000$ from them. Watercracker 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely we should. Politically savvy readers know that large companies often donate to both parties in an election, so smart readers won't put any stock in the information about contributions to Obama until they see the corresponding figure for McCain. If Conservapedia is to be Trustworthy, it needs to put facts in context for the reader. This is particularly true when, with just a few clicks, the reader can discover that the story isn't quite as Conservapedia seems to be spinning it. Otherwise, the reader loses trust in Conservapedia to provide accurate, trustworthy information, and Conservapedia's reputation is tarnished. --Hsmom 13:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

They simply cannot help themselves

This was an interesting article:

Masses of dust floating around a distant binary star system suggest that two Earth-like planets obliterated each other in a violent collision, U.S. researchers reported on Friday.

"It's as if Earth and Venus collided with each other," Benjamin Zuckerman, an astronomer at the University of California Los Angeles, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

"Astronomers have never seen anything like this before; apparently major, catastrophic, collisions can take place in a fully mature planetary system."

Until it came to this laughable and inevitable point:

"If any life was present on either planet, the massive collision would have wiped out everything in a matter of minutes: the ultimate extinction event," said Gregory Henry of Tennessee State University.

Jinxmchue 09:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

You're right - its a very interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. But what's "laughable and inevitable"? What's your point? BenHur 13:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't understand what's so laughable about this. The thought that there could have been life on another planet? If so, I think it's just a complete hypothetical, or perhaps staying with the comparison of this event to Earth colliding with Venus. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 22:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Proofing the Page

Bill Maher

Maher admits lying to the people he interviewed about the subject matter and title of the film - the only surprise is that he didn't lie about his lying. This may (or may not) be true, but the cited reference does not support it. The statement should be removed until a supporting reference can be added. --Hsmom 12:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems that who ever put that on the news page seems to have forgotten something. 16:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT) Konstanty
I agree (with Hsmom). Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. Unfortunately, it's still there. If Conservapedia is to be trustworthy, sources must be cited, especially when we are accusing someone of deceit. Without sources, we should not post accusations. I would not be surprised if this accusation was true; after all, we've seen this kind of behavior before, as Konstanty notes. Nonetheless, I'd like to see front page material carefully sourced. It's nothing less than what we'd expect of students.--Hsmom 08:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Fixed. --DeanStalk 08:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks.--Hsmom 10:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Racial Views

A Stanford University study found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward African Americans. Honest Democratic citizens need to breakaway from the liberal party's influence. The second sentence doesn't seem to follow from the first, nor does it make sense in the context of the cited article. The entry states Honest Democratic citizens need to breakaway from the liberal party's influence, yet the cited article does not discuss whether Democrats who harbor negative views toward African Americans do so because of influence from the Democratic party. In addition, the article didn't mention the number of white Republicans who harbor negative views toward African Americans, so we don't know if it was higher or lower than the number of Democrats. In fact, since the article states 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents., and among Democrats it is only 33%, it is quite possible that the percentage of Republicans who feel this way is higher than 33%. One has to be careful in drawing conclusions from statistics. I think this entry needs to be modified to be more in line with the cited article. --Hsmom 12:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Well put. I again agree. Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks - I believe this one has been fixed.--Hsmom 08:41, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Movie Boycott, or Publicity

The founder of the movie review company Movieguide has joined the growing ranks of protesters calling for a box office boycott of two films that feature sexually explicit scenes involving young girls. Why give these movies any more attention? It's pretty much standard practice to generate PR for movies by playing up controversy. Why allow Conservapedia to be used in this way?--Hsmom 12:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

The films themselves are not mentioned, and although objecting can give publicity, not objecting gives implicit support. Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm glad the films aren't mentioned. However, I don't agree that not objecting gives implicit support. Unless Conservapedia is going to provide comprehensive film ratings/reviews, I feel there is no obligation to call attention to the existence of these films. I'm guessing there are a lot of films that many Conservapedians would find objectionable; we couldn't possibly list them all. I fear that we are playing into the PR plans of the films' distributors by calling attention to them.--Hsmom 08:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Air America

the ex-host of the failed liberal radio network Air America, As noted in an entry above, Air American is not a "failed" network; it is still on the air. Please change this - if Conservapedia is to be a Trustworthy encyclopedia, it must get the details right. --Hsmom 12:46, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for bringing it up again, Hsmom. And she's the "ex-host" of a show on the network, not the network itself. (She's on NovaM now, and back in Florida). Human 22:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It's gone from the Main Page now, but I don't consider "failed" synonymous with "off the air". Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I can see your point to some extent, but perhaps another word (struggling?) would be more appropriate. This one's been archived now, I think. --Hsmom 08:48, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Still here?

Environmentalism is a Religion. I really don't get why this is still here. We have a link to a picture of several people who are apparently "watching four tree-sitters come down from a 90-foot redwood at UC Berkeley, ending a 21-month sit-in. The protesters had been trying to block the razing of a forest to make way for development." One of the people in the picture appears to be praying, possibly asking God to help the tree-sitters get down safely from the 90-foot tree. How does that make environmentalism a religion? --Hsmom 12:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

If you look at our article on Nazism you will find that in a 1941 survey of German POWs, 50% gave 'nature' as their religion. Environmentalism is a religion - and one espoused by some pretty unpleasant types. Bugler 16:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Nazis. Huh.--Hsmom 08:49, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
How many of them listed their religion as a Christian denomination? Besides, it's pretty clear that they meant some form of paganism, which is not the same as or equal to environmentalism, despite some stupid, blubbery smug comment that might follow this. Harbinger 13:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


We have no apparent standard for these left-side articles. Some have bold headlines; others do not. Some end in a period before the link; others end in a colon, others have no punctuation before the link. Some are in Title Case; others Sentence case. There is no reference section on the page, and links are not given titles. Can we discuss some standards? --Hsmom 13:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We like diversity!--Aschlafly 14:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I'll have a look at this. Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Better? Philip J. Rayment 07:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
A bit, yes. Thanks. I can see some improvement. Aschlafly, I think diversity is a good thing when it comes to people, not so much with grammar and punctuation. Though I suppose it was good enough for the founding fathers...--Hsmom 08:51, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Canadian Babies

This one, mentioned previously, still has not been fixed, so I'm repeating it here - could someone take a stab at it please? Statistics reveal that 80-90% of Canadian and approximately 95 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome in England and Spain are aborted. As written, this sentence implies that 80-90% of Canadian babies are aborted. Sort of - it's kind of a mess. How about 80-90% of Canadian babies with Down syndrome are aborted. In the US, it's an estimated 84-91%, in England, 94%, and in Spain, 95%. Not perfect, maybe someone else can take a stab at it.--Hsmom 13:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

The meaning is clear. No one would think that 80-90% of Canadian babies are aborted. Headlines are never models of perfection, and your more wordy suggestion is not a significant improvement.--Aschlafly 14:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I think that matters of grammar and readability are very important for a site such as this, especially on the front page. You are right that the reader can figure out what was meant in the sentence above, but it can be improved. My version is not perfect, I freely admit. However, "significant improvement" should not be the standard required in order to make a change. Even a minor improvement is a step in the right direction. I don't mean to be critical by posting suggestions on this page. On most other pages, I would simply insert the commas, or change the capitalization, or re-word the sentence to be grammatically correct - whatever is needed. However, I do not have editing privileges on this page, so when I see areas of concern I must use the talk page to communicate them to those who can make the changes. I was assuming such contributions would be helpful and welcomed. --Hsmom 14:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Suggestions are welcome, and I explained why this suggestion was not adopted. We've seen nit-picky complaints about headlines before. When they are valid, we change them, but often the suggested alternatives are not meaningful improvements. In this case, the headline is not even on the main page any more, yet you're still complaining about it.--Aschlafly 14:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, the headline was on the main page this morning, when I posted my concerns. I see that it has now been archived, so it's probably not worth changing it at this point. I do not, however, believe my concerns were nit-picky. As a homeschool teacher/mom, I believe that good grammar is always appropriate, and we should set an example for our students/children by being careful in our own writing, especially here since this site is designed, in part, to be used by students. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. --Hsmom 14:40, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree that we should adopt high standards of grammar and accuracy. But as it's not on the Main Page now... Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Philip J. Rayment.--Hsmom 08:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama's Social Security Whopper

I know the News headlines here are supposed to be pro-conservative, but isn't it it a blatant double-standard to discuss any Obama ad as misleading when the McCain campaign has been admonished by no less than the Wall Street Journal and Karl Rove for crossing the line in being misleading? It's possible to be both pro-conservative and still acknowledge the criticisms being leveled at the conservative candidate by fellow conservatives. --DinsdaleP 09:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. We should hold all candidates to high standards.--Hsmom 08:55, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin email hackers caught

Good to see we're covering this on the front page (and of course good to hear the FBI has identified the criminal!). Hopefully this incident will serve as a warning to the occasional hackers/vandals on Conservapedia that you can't be completely anonymous on the Internet - if you hack, law enforcement WILL find you. --DRamon 13:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Vandals on CP are not in the same class as hackers. Hacking involves illegally gaining access to a secured computer or website. Vandalism on CP involves access to a wiki that is open to nearly everyone, which explains why the FBI is not the least bit interested in pursing CP vandals--Saxplayer 13:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Do you have a source for that? Did the FBI personally explain it to you? Karajou 13:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It would be nice if FBI catched one of those vandals and it turned out to be another son of a Democratic politician! It would also give us some notoriety. --Devout 13:49, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Many liberals don't believe in teaching that deceit is wrong. In addition to being a crime, deceitful trespassing is wrong. Too bad some people don't learn and teach that.--Aschlafly 13:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Idea... what do you think about expanding the deceit article a little to cover the topic of deceitful trespassing? --DRamon 14:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Some excuses have been tossed around by the left saying that the people behind the hack were "anarchists" who had no loyalty to any political group. However, Michelle Malkin reproduced a post this guy made on the site where these hackers get together (which I will not link to since it was explained to be loaded with pornography - another unsurprising fact). In it, he explained that he hacked the account looking for information that would hurt Palin. That hardly sounds like someone with no loyalties. Jinxmchue 14:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Given that this is an open wiki (ie - with no restrictions on joining), and that vandalism of any page can be undone with a single click, is law enforcement really interested in prosecuting the vandals? Eoinc 17:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
That's a silly argument. As an analogy, a public street is "open" to anyone, so anyone can walk down a street and spraypaint something on an adjacent building. The graffiti can be "undone" with a paintbrush stroke, but it's still vandalism, and I am sure law enforcement would be interested in prosecuting such vandals. --DRamon 17:34, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
There is a big differnce between the two. Vandalsim of a building results in the loss of something with monetary value (ie, you must pay someone to clean or paint over it) whereas nothing of serious value is lost in the reverting of wiki vandalsim. Also, a building does not encourage the average person to contribute to it's design and decoration. I would like to see the statute Wiki vandalism would be covered under. NateE Let Us Communicate 17:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, with what would the offender be charged? Not with hacking or trespassing, surely, because anyone can set up an account. If they were prosecuted for vandalism, the judge must take into consideration the seriousness of the damage caused and the cost of repairing it. In the case of wikis, vandalism can be reverted within seconds of being discovered with minimal effort. Isn't the time of the law enforcers better spent on more serious crimes? Eoinc 17:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
"Monetary value" should not be the only criterion in determining whether something is vandalism or not. Just because the editors at Conservapedia are volunteers doesn't mean it's ok to desecrate their work. Also, consider this analogy - if I went to a National Park and started chopping down vegetation, don't you think law enforcements (and environmentalists!) would be after me? The vegetation I destroyed doesn't have any monetary value. --DRamon 18:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
To nitpick, given the high price of energy, you could make a profit by selling the wood you chopped... Joking aside, I agree. Let's also not forget the educational value of Conservapedia. Leopeo 19:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
The issue isn't monetary damage so much as the fact that Conservapedia gives permission for people to make edits here, it even encourages them to. As long as the edits themselves are not illegal (no libel or threats) the law does not differentiate between liberal and conservative edits, or true or untrue edits, or sensical or nonsensical edits, or edits the powers that be approve of and ones they disapprove of. That all comes down to the rules the site sets up, and the law is not going to enforce an website's rules for them. As long as this remains an open wiki there is no legal action that can be taken against any editor. They are not hacking into a closed system. Reynard 09:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Users vandalizing Conservapedia in the past have been reported to the FBI. If I'm not mistaken, the FBI cracked down on them pretty harshly. Jimmyjohn 10:25, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
You are mistaken. Reynard 10:37, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) DRamon, you are also mistaken. You would be prosecuted if you went around cutting down trees in parks, but that would be prosecuted for damage to and destruction of federal property (assuming it was a National Park) and not vandalsim. However, your actions could be considered vandalism, as the park employees (or other hired labor) would have to come in and try to repair what you've done (clear the stump, redo the landscaping and such) NateE Let Us Communicate 15:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

As far as the FBI goes, there was some huffing and puffing by sysops on this site and threats of reporting vandals to the FBI. It seems that either CP did report the vandalism, and the FBI choose to do nothing (because a crime had not been committed), or that the sysops were merely bluffing. I suspect it is the latter. There is an enormous difference between signing up and making entries on a wiki, and breaking into someone's email or computer by circumventing security protocols.--Saxplayer 17:52, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Sigh. It kind of makes me laugh that all of you care so much about stuff that does absolutely nothing to affect anyone's life. Listen: Computer vandalism is not like famine, war or violent crime, which if left unchecked might lead to your plane getting spit-balled out of the sky by an RPG (or something). It should not present a moral crisis to anyone. Belief in vandalism is kind of fascistic, after all. Who's to say only one organism in the world can enjoy something, just because he traded some mashed-up-tree money for it? I'd really like to know. Redoubt 18:00, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Are "Saxplayer" and "Redoubt" planning careers as public school teachers? They'd fit in well. The public school mindset of {morality is what you want it to be, and trespassing against others is OK if you want it to be} is implicit in the above two comments.-Aschlafly 18:03, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
No, not planning a career as a teacher "Aschlafly." Merely stating fact. If I recall correctly, you did perhaps the most huffing and puffing about calling the FBI. What happened? Where are they? Vandalism on CP seems to continue unabated.--Saxplayer 18:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
That seems uncalled for Aschlafly. Public schools do not teach that trespassing is OK. It's against the law and that's that. If an individual trespasses, it's their own fault, and no public school is going to turn them into criminals. I don't know about the background to this FBI story, but the suggestion above is that this site reported editors to the FBI? If so, that seems like a profound waste of the taxpayers money and time, as this site is a wiki and you have no barrier to entry? I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong, but did they do any permanent damage to any data? Were files erased? Couldn't you just have clicked 'Undo'? Basically, what happened - it's not clear from what's mentioned here? BenHur 18:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
No, Andy. I'm going to fail as a teacher and start an online encyclopedia called Vandalpedia. Redoubt 18:19, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Ah, Redoubt has wit! As BenHur stated, vandalism here had no lasting impact and was quickly undone. --Saxplayer 18:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry to see Redoubt blocked. I guess wit is not always welcome--Saxplayer 18:23, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
"Redoubt" fails as a comedian also. "Saxplayer", you're not adding much value either, with your apparent approval of vandalism. You may want to spend your time on a site that welcomes it. We do not. We're here to learn, not operate a day care center for the easily amused and morally confused.--Aschlafly 18:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

BenHur, you are correct that schools don't teach that trespassing is okay. But Aschlafly's point, regardless of how well he put it, is that government schools teach relative morality, rather than an absolute morality. With relative morality, right and wrong is a matter of opinion, so such things as saying that trespass is okay become possible.

I haven't gotten involved with the FBI stuff, but suffice to say that I believe that the FBI has not been contacted for run-of-the-mill vandalism.

Philip J. Rayment 22:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I guess I am guilty of terrible gullibility then!! - I fell for Jimmyjohn and Saxplayer's allegations above. Stupid me. So the FBI story is nonsense then? Good, I'm glad to hear it. Sorry if I cast aspersions on CP. BenHur 13:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Superior Australia

Here can you add this[5] as a front page news article. Its all about how Australia is leading the USA in many aspects, its really interesting and very relevant in the current political climate. Cheers--Lamb12 19:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of Australia, John McCain has today written an excellent piece in our main national newspaper, The Australian. He talks about America and Australia's shared history, the war in Iraq, Free trade, Environmentalism, and the War on Terror. -- Ferret Nice old chat 09:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
The Age opinion piece is typical left-wing claptrap. About the only things that it claims Australia "leads" America on are things where the writer has an ideological preference for the way Australia does it. It's not like saying Australia produces more oranges per capita than America—that would be an objective comparison; it's like saying that Australia produces oranges and America produces plums, and therefore Australia leads America because oranges are nicer! That's totally subjective. I call it left-wing claptrap because it starts with the presumption that the left's view of things is the right one, and argues on the basis of that presumption, with no attempt to show that their presumption is the right one. (And yes, some conservatives argue the same way, but it appears par for the course on the left.) Philip J. Rayment 11:20, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
That opinion piece was particularly shallow and vacuous - even for The Age. --Horace 19:20, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Mouse-Insulin Experiment News

Thanks to Jpatt for submitting this - it's wonderful news, and encouraging for people like me who have relatives with diabetes. We could use more stories like this on the Main Page. --DinsdaleP 09:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Julius Rosenberg?

To the best of my knowledge, it has been common knowledge for an extremely long time, even by liberals, that Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union (he didn't give them anything useful, but he still tried to commit treason). The article linked does not discuss this supposed "liberal deceit", as liberals have admitted this for some time, nor does it mention the conservative deceit (it is well-known that Ethel, Julius' wife who was also executed, had basically nothing to do with the espionage and testimony implicating her was brought on under pressure by shady prosecutors). Nor does the front page mention the thing which actually IS interesting about the article, that Morton Sobell admitted to being a spy (it HAS been a widely-held belief among liberals and some conservatives that he wasn't, and in any case the evidence was shaky at best).

Little failures of reading comprehension like this are a black mark on this website's reputation. I would have reported this sooner had I not been capriciously blocked. (Makes you think... maybe accuracy should be more important than ideological posturing.) Egen 18:33, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I look at this website and see many things that are not right. I try to change but page is locked or someone change my edits. This website needs much work to be very good. SyedO 09:38, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservative guru George Will: McCain "not suited to the Presidency"

This might have been a good article to post here during the primaries, but the site's tone has become more pro-McCain since then. Fishal 16:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Danish schools and evolution

I found an interesting article today that explains an upcoming Danish school program that although unquestionably secular in nature, will at least "give pupils an opportunity to critically examine views contrary to Darwinian evolution, for example Intelligent Design and biblical Creationism." It's unfortunate that American schools can't be as open-minded. --DRamon 10:57, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

It's unfortunate that we have got to the state that we think that this tiny concession counts as being "open minded"! Clearly, the program will be reinforcing the view that evolution is Truth and creation is not scientific, and have co-opted the "useful idiots" of the church to help with that. But admittedly, it does appear to be a tad better than some other places, such as America, will allow. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain's Campaign suspension

Shouldn't McCain's announcement that he's suspending his campaign to address the financial crisis be a News headline? It seems both relevant and significant. --DinsdaleP 11:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP - I think it's clear that this isn't really intended to be a proper 'News' page - you'll see my section above about this, the most critical news story in America's recent history, has been utterly ignored, and the only person who commented was an Australian editor. If American conservatives aren't interested in the total financial meltdown of their nation's economy, God help all of us. It's clear the Main Page News doesn't reflect the world you, I, or the vast majority of others live in, but instead the fanatical obsessions of literally a handful of single-issue obsessed individuals. It's a disgrace, and I think they should stop calling the section 'In The News'. BenHur 11:47, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Biden's History Gaffes

If we're going to make gaffe's like Biden's the standard for newsworthiness, then let's focus on gaffes involving relevant current events and not just history:

  • Sarah Palin doesn't realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not taxpayer-funded (until the other week at least)
  • McCain thinks the President can directly fire the Chairman of the SEC, which he can't
  • McCain called the fundamentals of the economy sound, and then had to narrowly redefine what he meant by "fundamentals" since we're in the midst of a crisis of fundamental liquidity and solvency
  • McCain considers the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to be a regulatory agency, which it is not

My point isn't to be glib, or to actually advocate reporting McCain/Palin gaffes too. (btw - I chose actual misunderstandings as opposed to simple slips like McCain referring to the Iraq/Afghanistan border, or referring to the FEC when he meant the SEC). It's just that when there's real news to be reported, it demeans this site to post "news" stories about non-conservatives that make a big deal about minor mistakes, while pretending that mistakes are not made by conservatives too. To paraphrase Aschlafly, let's just have the New section focus on substantive issues, please. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 11:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I have to ask - what made Biden's statements change from "errors" to "lies". --DinsdaleP 17:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
He's a democrat, of course.--IanG 11:21, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Biden is now claiming that he never introduced a piece of legislation that would've split Iraq into three sections for Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. [6] So, yes, he does lie about history - especially his own. Jinxmchue 14:19, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I just thumbed through the text of the amendment, and the only thing I can see is that it calls for Iraq to maintain unity. It identifies "Kurdistan" as a largely peaceful and stable area. It does call for the Iraqi parliament to "create federal regions," though it does not specify how those regions should be determined. It makes no mention of the nationality of those regions. It did pass with an overwhelming majority of the senate by a vote of 75-23. I'm sure much of the amendment was discussed on the floor of the Senate, and that's where the nationality issue comes up. The text of the amendment in question can be found here. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:48, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
I was asking why the comments in the "News" story about Biden's gaffes regarding FDR, the Depression and television were changes to portray them as lies versus mistakes. It takes intent to lie, so where is the proof that Biden was intentionally lying in this case (the Iraq legislation is a different matter. To accuse someone of lying without proof is deceitful. --DinsdaleP 19:27, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
To accuse someone of lying without proof is deceitful. I completely agree. An accusation of lying is serious business, and should only be done with proof that the statement was untrue and that it was intended to mislead. We all misspeak sometimes, especially as we get older. --Hsmom 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Since there has been no direct response from Aschlafly to my point, I will restate it respectfully but directly. If you have no verifiable proof that Biden was deliberately lying in his comments about FDR, the Depression and television in the News story above, then the accusation that he was deliberately lying needs to be retracted. If they stay without proof, then this is a case of deliberate deceit for ideological purposes, and it's wrong. (Request to others with Block rights - if you take offense at my objection, it is Aschlafly's place to block me over it, not anyone elses, because all I'm asking for is truthfulness.) --DinsdaleP 13:38, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

FInland and gun control

After the latest school shootings in Finland, liberals are clamoring to claim that it's an example of why there should be stricter gun control. But they fail to see that it's quite the opposite. People say that Finland has very little gun control, but that's not entirely true - in fact, carrying firearms in public places is prohibited. Hence it was illegal for anyone at the school - including teachers - to have a gun on them for defense. If some people had guns, perhaps they would have been able to confront the shooter and there would have been fewer victims. More gun control won't solve the problem - it won't stop a future school shooter. --DRamon 13:33, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps you are right that if some people had guns they would have been able to confront the shooter and reduces the casualties. But you can't say with certainty that more gun control won't solve the problem. If it stops future potential shooters from getting guns, then it will solve the problem. Philip J. Rayment
That's naive, and DRamon is quite correct. Criminals and terrorists will always get guns. True safety involves the good guys having guns, too. Bugler 06:24, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
No, they won't "always" get guns. If nobody has guns, where do the criminals get them from? Yes, that's a bit simplistic, but no more so than your comment. Philip J. Rayment 07:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
That's an extraordinary remark. The UK is awash with guns - in criminal circles. They get them illegally imported, they get them converted from 'fake' or deactivated firearms,. they are stolen from licenced users. The only ones without guns are the law-abiding. I can't imagine that Australia is much different. And attempting to completely remove guns from as gun-conscious a nation as Finland beggars imagination - there will be so many missed that a nice little pool will remian for criminals. Bugler 07:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
No, Australia is not awash with guns. Perhaps our enforcement, border security, and customs are more effective than yours? Philip J. Rayment 08:37, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Just fists and boots with Aussie crims, eh? Forgive me for feeling rather cynical about your assertion. Bugler 09:54, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
And forgive me for feeling rather cynical about your knowledge of the Australian situation, plus your (lack of) imagination to think that if they don't have gun, there's nothing else they could possibly use but fists and boots. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Eh, there's evidence on both sides of the fence on this one. Switzerland is a nation that most conservatives point to as the success of arming the citizenry, and Japan is a nation that many liberals point to as gun control working. Both nations have low crime rates—for the record, both nations have seen a spike in crime in the last decade. I wish I still had the paper I wrote for Judicial Behavior 301 because I had evidence that supported both sides very concisely. There's just really no definitive evidence either way. I hate to sound wishy-washy here, but I think that's just the bottom line. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Your bottom line, then, negates the false liberal claim that gun control would reduce crime. Indeed, liberals support gun control for a reason having nothing to do with crime: they like to shift power from individuals to the government. Liberals who promote gun control should at least admit that as their motivation, given that the evidence (and logic) does not support their claims about crime.--Aschlafly 08:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Japan's First Catholic Leader

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but that was Oda Nobunaga. Rockthecasbah 20:26, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Muslim Pronunciation

There is no such thing. Islam is not a language. Now, he could be using the Arabic pronunciation, but does that mean anyone who says "e-rok" instead of "i-rak" is a muslim?--IanG 09:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

No-one is suggesting that Islam is a language, and deliberately drawing that inference is insulting and provocative - and distracts - deliberately, perhaps? - from the point made. Try making substantive posts, rather than causing trouble. Bugler 09:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
The point being made is that the way Obama pronounces proper nouns the same way a Muslim would, therefore this must be evidence that he is a Muslim. Now, quoted directly from the news story "the Muslim pronunciation"; for there to be a Muslim pronunciation, there would have to be a Muslim language, dialect, or accent. There isn't any, but there is an Arabic language. We know Obama knows how to pronounce Arabic, and seeing as Pakistan is an Arabic country, he was merely pronouncing it correctly. Now, you can't infer that Obama is a Muslim because he says Arabic words properly, without saying anyone who speaks Arabic words properly could be a Muslim. --IanG 10:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
for there to be a Muslim pronunciation, there would have to be a Muslim language, dialect, or accent. In Northern Ireland, certain words are spoken differently by the Catholic and Protestant communities. The letter H, for example, is called 'aitch' by Protestants and 'haitch' by Catholics. Yet there are no such things as 'Protestant language' or 'Catholic language'. Your argument fails.
Now, you can't infer that Obama is a Muslim because he says Arabic words properly, without saying anyone who speaks Arabic words properly could be a Muslim. I would agree wholeheartedly that anyone who speaks Arabic words correctly could be a Muslim. Why on earth would anyone not? Bugler 10:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
I pronounce Cuba "coups-bah" which is how it is pronounced in Spanish, not the standard American "cue-bah." I also pronounce Castro "Kah-strow" as opposed to "Cah-strow." Does that make me a communist from Cuba? Come on, seriously, of all the things said in the debate, you want to focus on how Obama said Pakistan? He pronounced it correctly in the way it was meant to be said. If someone calls the language of Iran Farsi instead of Persian (Farsi being the Farsi/Persian word for their language) does that make them an Iranian sleeper cell? Does McCain's inability to say Ahmadinejad mean he doesn't know enough about him? No of course not. If you want to criticize Obama's performance, by all means do so. That is the point of debates, to open the forum to questions and close examination of policy, but must we look at such stupid things as pronunciation? --AndrasK 10:50, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
From Bugler's statement above: "I would agree wholeheartedly that anyone who speaks Arabic words correctly could be a Muslim. Why on earth would anyone not?" The same could be said for ANYTHING. If I pronounce radium right, does that mean my last name is Curie? Nope. But, seriously IanG and AndrasK, this isn't going to be changed. Anyone who looks at that right away and doesn't feel uneasy about the way it's portrayed on the Main Page isn't going to look for this discussion and see all the reasonable points you've both put forward. I've lobbied a couple times before to fundamentally clean up the tenor of the News section, but they always get reverted, expunged from my lists of contributions, and I get banned as a "troll" (I pronounce it "trawl" so I don't get accused of being one). But keep up the fight. Harbinger 11:06, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
You'll notice that the featured article, on Sarah Palin, also gives pronunciation tips on her last name. I know Conservapedia promotes American English spellings (color instead of colour), but, and I really do not mean this in a parodic way, does it promote certain pronunciations, and should these be included in some kind of list? Harbinger 11:32, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
You know, I thought that IanG's argument was pretty good, until I read Bugler's response about Catholic vs. Protestant pronunciations of "H". Bugler is correct on that particular point: You could have a Muslim pronunciation of something without there being a Muslim language. However, the letter "H" is about the only Catholic/Protestant difference that I'm aware of, but I'm aware of many variations in pronunciation related to nationality or etc. So the real question is not whether there could be a Muslim pronunciation (there is a small chance of that), but whether there is a Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan. That most variations in pronunciation apparently have nothing to do with religion would put the onus on the person making the claim to show that it is a Muslim pronunciation. Does anyone (especially Andy or Bugler) have any evidence of that? Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

This just in: if y'all actually knew anything about Islam you'd realize that all of the 1 billion Muslims on earth are trained at an early age to pronounce everything a certain way. Converts are taught these things. You see, there must be a Muslim pronunciation of things, because Obama pronounces things differently, and he's a Muslim... Rockthecasbah 11:46, 27 September 2008 (EDT) P.S.- This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the Conservapedia news page.

Then you haven't been around long.--KathrynMonroe 13:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

In the debate, Barack Obama repeatedly used the Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan": "Pokiston". Obama repeatedly used the most correct pronunciation of Pakistan, that is, the one that most Pakistanis would use. But why is this news? Are we trying to say that Obama has better foreign relations skills than McCain? That's a strange thing for Conservapedia to highlight. Just because McCain doesn't pronounce Pakistan properly doesn't mean he's not as good at foreign relations as Obama. --Hsmom 11:56, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

According to Merriam-Webster, there are two generally-accepted pronunciations: "Pack-uh-stan" and "Paw-key-ston". He kind of mixed the two. How does he pronounce Tanzania? Or what about those politicians who are out of touch with the common man, and insist on calling it "America" instead of "murka"? Language is so mutable and ever-changing (you know the founding fathers used that wierd looking f thing instead of the letter S, right? why don't we follow THAT rule?) that we really can't establish rules for how things should be said, otherwise we're enforcing right-wing political correctness. Harbinger 11:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

First, there is no "Muslim" pronunciation of anything. It is not a language. There are Muslims who, like Christians and members of many other religions, are native speakers of many different languages. The pronunciation to which you refer is closer to the pronunciation of "Pakistan" that would be heard in its own part of the world. If anything, Americanized pronunciations of it are less correct than their own. Your point seems to be to paint Obama as a Muslim by using a more-correct pronunciation of the country's name to tie him to Islam. He is not a Muslim and the way he pronounces the name of Pakistan has no bearing on his allegiances to any religion or any country. If anything, his sensitivity to a more correct pronunciation of Pakistan underscores his generally very high level of education and awareness of global issues. Cplantin 12:34, 26 SEPTEMBER 2008 (CDT)

BTW, to correct a error a few people have said--Pakistan is not an Arab country and "Pakistan" is not an Arabic word. The national language of Pakistan is Urdu. Cheesehead 13:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
I stand corrected, yet my main point doesn't change. --IanG 14:29, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

This does seem like a completely absurd thesis. Everyone used to refer to the capital of China as Peking - now it's universally known as Beijing. There were no complaints that we were all suddenly being propagandists for the Red Menace, was there? I wonder how Aschlafly would have us pronounce Valladolid? Or Timisoara? Foreign placenames are usually best pronounced as their own people pronounce them - it's not only a sign of respect, it's also a refusal to be ignorant about the world. EngelUmpocker 14:55, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I don't think the statement on the front page is saying "Obama is a muslim because of how he pronounces the word Pakistan." It's merely pointing out how he pronounces it, providing another piece to the puzzle (we already know of dozens of instances like this, where Obama does or says something that suggests he is a muslim). You're free to interpret all this evidence as you wish, but to a lot of us here it's pretty clear what it points at. --DRamon 15:42, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Even if Barack Obama was a Muslim, would it really matter? Would it really affect his ability to lead the US? Is there something in the Constitution that says Muslims, or Non-Christians or whatever can't run for Office? Liberalnproud

- Even if Barack Obama was a Muslim, would it really matter? Would it really affect his ability to lead the US? But if he were, and he lied about it all along - that WOULD matter. Greatly. Bugler 16:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, don't forget about the principle of Al Takeyya in Islam. --DRamon 17:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, DR: that speaks volumes. Bugler 17:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
FWIW, I have known several Christian Pakistanis over the years, and they have all pronounced it "pockistan." There is no "Muslim" pronunciation of Pakistan any more than there is a "Christian" pronunciation of "France." Ungtss 17:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is correct pronunciation bad? I'm a bit confused by this. --ThePositronicMan 17:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

ThePositronicMan was blocked for making the above comment. I cannot fathom why. He made a number of positive, substantive edits, and asked the above question in good faith. Ungtss 17:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT

Why would he lie about his religion, Bugler? As I understand it from my religious friends, faith is something to be proud of, something worn as a badge of honour. It really wouldn't serve his campaign at all to keep his religion under wraps, and I'm sure something much more concrete than 'oh, he pronounces 'Pakistan' differently from me' would've have come up by now, if he was a Muslim. There'll be thousands of journalists all over the world, trying to dig up dirt on him. I still don't see how his religion is at all important. Does the US Constitution prohibit non-Christians from running for Office? Liberalnproud

Read Al Takeyya. Bugler 07:57, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Hypothetically, he would lie about his religion if he thought that being truthful about it would harm his political chances. And his religion is important because religious beliefs define who we are, including things such as honesty and integrity, so a person's worldview/philosophies/religion is important. Philip J. Rayment 07:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
two responses to this... First, to Bugler, where did you find this particular rule (Al Takeyya that is) I attempted to follow the link, but my school has it blocked as a hate site and I could find no other mention of anything close to this except fringe blogs... Where is this discussed and who approves it's use? Next, to Phillip, I must disagree that someone's religion defines who they are. There are numerous examples of people throughout history who claim one religion, but break the most basic tenets of it. I would also add that I am not religious, but I have no problems with honesty or integrity, If I may say without seeming brash. NateE Let Us Communicate 12:14, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say that someone's "religion" defines who they are. I said their "religious beliefs" define who they are. Many people who claim to belong to a particular religion don't follow all the tenets of that religion, but selected ones, and differ in other points. Some adopt some beliefs of some religions and some beliefs of other religions. Some adopt some beliefs of a religion, but have their own personal beliefs about some points. Philip J. Rayment 08:24, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
As Philip says, religious beliefs certainly do define who someone is. In fact, they are a better predictor of actions (including political actions) than anything else. Am I talking about whether someone says he belongs to a particular church? No, of course not. I'm talking about what someone believes. And since Obama is not forthcoming or consistent about his real beliefs, voters have to figure it out from the evidence.--Aschlafly 08:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Must be addressed

Okay, you're all going to have to forgive me for this, because I need to know something about the mission that Conservapedia has given to itself, and if I put this on the specific pages mentioned, it will get breezed over or, worse, never read/replied to. At least here it might be exposed to more readers and more intelligent answers. Is this supposed to be a Conservative encyclopedia, or a Christian encyclopedia? Yeah, yeah, I get it: Use a metaphor comparing it to a Venn-Diagram. No, that's not going to help. Why is it that the Jesus article states right off the bat that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah who, at the appropriate time, was sent by his Father..."? WHAT? If this is a conservative website, which the name would lead me to believe that it is, then why does it only endorse one religion? This seems to conflict with LOTS of things going on here. How can an encyclopedia promote Christianity as fact but then say that Darwinism isn't? I'm not seeking an evolution vs. creationism debate. Don't start one. It's merely a blatant example of something I see a lot of.

What evidence is there for Christianity. How can you have an encyclopedia quoting the Bible, not merely to give examples of it's diction/content/format, but as evidence for support, and then say that there are news sources today that are too liberal? That doesn't seem like a conflict in scrutiny? There are news stories today that get fact-checked, examined and analyzed thousands of times and you still accuse them of being "flimsy at best". How does arbitrary Bible-adherence-for-the-sake-of-tradition have any more integrity than that? Or is their a shelf life now past which something becomes irrefutable? I really enjoy Conservapedia, and I'm not some rabble-rousing troll. I just want intelligent answers to this so my future contributions can be in line with the tone of this encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. Harbinger 13:37, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Edited out the minor swearing...if you please, be civil in addressing your comments. Karajou 13:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Harbinger: I think the key issue is defining what exactly "conservative" means. It's a very vague term. To the owners of this wiki, however, it holds a very specific meaning: Christian, ascribing to traditional 19th and early 20th century moral values, creationist, nationalistic, etc. That's certainly not the only possible definition of the term "conservative" -- some atheists would describe themselves as conservative in at least some senses. But it's the dominant definition applied here. As to evidence of Christianity, the primary evidence put forward by Christians is typically historical (premised on the reliability of the histories recorded in the Bible) and experiential (their own personal experiences of faith). If you credit those forms of evidence, Christianity appears reasonable. If you discount those those forms of evidence, Christianity appears unreasonable. Ungtss 17:46, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Harbinger, Ungtss has provided a good answer, and my essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia will take that a bit further. As for evidence for Christianity, that's a rather vague question, but see here for an answer. Philip J. Rayment 07:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Harbinger, you are clearly a moron. Acting as if the Bible and Conservapedia are one in the same and using perceived flaws with both to condemn the other is epitome of idiocy, and it has no place here. Besides, don't these arbitrary rants deserve some kind of block? Have fun on Wikipedia. PCarson 16:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Since when is namecalling good etiquette? That attitude is deplorable. PJR answered him reasonably and the issue was dropped. Your insults were uncalled for.--IanG 17:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

PCarson was blocked; not only was he a repeat troll, but he was also Harbinger as well as a few others. Basically he called himself a moron. Karajou 17:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

McCain with work to do

According to the betting market, McCain has some work to do if he is to win the election. His probability of winning has fallen back to 37.5%. Will the first debate cause that to change? Update here. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


This is insulting. There is no "Muslim" way to pronounce a word. There is a "normal person who does not particularly care about pronouncing it correctly" pronunciation ("paakistaan") and a "correct" pronunciation ("pokiston"). Note that Obama also uses the decidedly non-Muslim way to pronounce "Muslim" (Muhzlim, not Mooslim) and "Islam" (Izlam, not Islam). I guess by this logic, those two things are absolute proof that he's not a Muslim.

Whoever wrote this non-newsworthy and insulting entry should be scrubbed of their ability to update the front page. Egen 19:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Your feigned outrage only underscores the need for pointing out how Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan, rather than the English one. Learn some history and realize that Pakistan is a Muslim word that, of course, has a corresponding Muslim pronunciation. Obama uses it, probably as he was taught.--Aschlafly 23:01, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, do you use the city name Beijing? Or do you use Peking? If the former, by your argument, you are speaking Chinese. BenHur 16:18, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Andy, do you really mean it is a Muslim word? What do you mean by that? I thought (and I'm no expert) that Urdu was the main language amongst the Pakistani population. Do you mean that Obama used the Urdu pronunciation? -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:19, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Australians use many Aboriginal words. If they pronounce them the way that the Aborigines pronounce them, rather than some Anglicised pronunciation, then that does not make the user Aboriginal, nor a follower of Aboriginal religions. Rather, it means that they use the correct pronunciation. So if "Pakistan" is a Muslim word, then the "Muslim translation" would surely be, by definition, the correct pronunciation. Which means that the Main Page might as well say that Obama repeatedly used the correct pronunciation. This is pointless, so I'm removing it. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't see what the issue is here? What's wrong with pronouncing a word in its original language? Doing so is a sign of respect to that language. It'd be absolutely embarrassing for anyone, especially a high-level government official, to pronounce all foreign words (and more importantly, _names_) in forced English pronunciation. I support PJR's removal of this markedly non-issue blown out of proportion by selected members of this site. ATang 23:52, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Protest at censorship by PJR

I protest Philip J. Rayment's arrogant and high handed action in unilaterally deleting this item. Bugler 08:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I asked you and Andy for evidence that there was such a thing as a Muslim pronunciation in this case. You offered nothing. Andy's only offering amounted to saying that the pronunciation was the correct one. I protest your protestation that ignores the evidence and tries to make me the villain simply because I removed something the evidence didn't support. Or don't the facts matter to you? Philip J. Rayment 08:52, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Never mind the evidence: what about the issues of courtesy to the Leader of this project, and of your taking it upon yourself to censor opinion. And don't you dare try and shift the blame onto me with your implication that I was somehow specifically asked for evidence and that I somehow failed to provide this. The whole issue had nothing to do with me personally; it was Mr Schlafly's edit that you have censored. That is an insidious way of trying to shift the blame for this disgraceful episode onto me. It is not me that is at fault. It is you. Bugler 08:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
"Never mind the evidence"? Well, that about sums it up, I guess. And what lack of courtesy are you talking about? I give Andy opportunity to provide supportive evidence? What is discourteous about that? It was no "implication" that you were "somehow specifically asked for evidence": I specifically did ask you[7], because you defended the item. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
P.S. What about your "arrogant and high handed action in unilaterally deleting this item"? Philip J. Rayment 08:55, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, well. You appear to have been studying Liberal tricks to some benefit. Why not introduce a completely irrelevant issue to divert attention from your own manifest shortcomings! For your information, I removed Fishal's piece of vandalism because it was a gratuitous, irrelevant and immature insult to the US Head of State. Please try and stick to the points at issue. Bugler 09:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
It is not completely irrelevant: it is the same sort of situation. You justify your unilateral action on the basis of it being justified, but for my case you ignore the justification and accuse me simply for doing it. That is a double standard. And that was my point in asking it. And by the way, I try to stay away from those Liberal ______ pages. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
That is a double standard And that is what psychologists call 'projection'. And you are still trying to avoid the main issue by attempting to divert onto a discussion of my supposed shortcomings (see Luke 6:41, by the way) Bugler 09:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
It is not completely irrelevant: it is the same sort of situation So: you see an immature insult by a vandal and the thoughtful addition of a newsworthy insight by Andrew Schlafly as being in the same category. Interesting. And you continue to avoid answering on the courtesy issue. Bugler 09:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
No, I'm not trying to "divert" onto another issue. I'm trying to point out that, by your own admission, you agree with unilateral action when you feel it is justified. Therefore, to be consistent, you should either agree with what I did, or explain why it was not justified. The two cases are not exact analogies (no analogies ever are), but that there was "unilateral" deletion is what they have in common, and that is the point that I was comparing. As for the courtesy issue, I didn't ignore it; I asked what was discourteous about what I did. You haven't answered that. Philip J. Rayment 09:43, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
What I just did was dicourteous. Which is exactly what you did to Andy. I must say, I didn't expect to have to actually demonstrate what discourtesy is, but I suppose you are Australian. Bugler 10:43, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Wow, way to be blatantly racist, Bugler.--IanG 12:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I assume, Bugler, that your "What I just did" was your (deliberate) replacement of my comment (since reinstated) with your own. First, I wasn't asking for a definition or example of discourteousness, but an explanation of how I was discourteous. Second, editing or removing someone's personal talk-page comment is "discourteous" (if you want to call it that), but editing (which includes removing) an article or similar edit, which is not a personal comment, is not discourteous, but par for the course on a Wiki. So your analogy is invalid. Philip J. Rayment 18:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I didn't expect to have to actually demonstrate what discourtesy is, but I suppose you are Australian. Well said, we Australian's don't know the meaning of discouteous because we are a naturally eloquent and fraternal people. On the topic at hand (rather than Bugler's bungled racism);is the situation at hand actually a case where one contributor has been accused of censorship by another purely because he removed an invalid news article (keeping in mind that the news article itself has been admitted Never mind the evidenceas being worthy of removal)? If so, then so perhaps a certain contributor should quit the bugling, and the racism, and the ad hominem arguments against Phil (keeping in mind that he's one of the more logical and fair people on this rather controversial site), and get back to contributing to the site. Having said that, I myself am awaiting the sweet kiss of death in the form of a 90/10, but couldn't help piping up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholl (talk)

If it's interesting to anyone, this issue led me to figure out what exactly the "Pak" in "Pakistan" is. It's Paak (pronounced pock, obviously) -- Urdu for "Pure." Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure" in Urdu. Equivalent to having "Righteousness City" or "Republic of Holiness." Very interesting. Ungtss 13:22, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Reminder that John McCain uses the "Muslim" pronunciation of Pakistan as well, and I believe I've heard him use the "Muslim" pronunciation of Iran. Why aren't these also mentioned on the front page? Among other people I've also heard several CNN anchors and Karl Rove himself use the "Muslim" pronunciation of Pakistan. Is United States cable news just swimming with stealth Muslims? Seriously, there is absolutely no way this item was newsworthy and PJR was right to remove it. --Egen 14:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't want to get involved, but I have to disagree here. I watched the debate. If anything McCain was pronouncing Pakistan as "Pahkistaahn" with emphasis on the last syllable and a's as in "apple". Nor do I remember him saying "Eeron" instead of "I-ran". Now if he was in those countries, I'm sure he would use their pronunciation (when in Rome, do as the Romans do). But he is communicating with the American people and so he's going to use the American pronunciation. -Foxtrot 17:03, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia's Evolution Article is Climbing Up the Search Engine Rankings

Conservapedia's evolution article has momentum!

Conservapedia's evolution article has been climbing up the search engine rankings. The evolution article article has momentum and will likely continue to improve its search engine rankings. The history of Conservapedia articles that have become more popular among conservatives and more well known by liberals strongly suggest that Conservapedia article will likely keep climbing up the search engine rankings. The Conservapedia evolution article will likely see a significant uptick in traffic. Given that the evolutionary position is slowly losing support in the United States which is one of the scientific powerhouses of the world, the Conservapedia article gaining more and more exposure certainly is not helpful in regards to evolutionists propagating their evolutionary dogma on the internet.conservative 02:10, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Why did you remove the Hitler picture from the start of the article?--British_cons (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
British cons, I don't blame you for asking the reason as there surely was a reason, however, I hope you don't mind me not telling you the reason as you are on the other side of the creation-evolution aisle. Although I certainly do not agree with everything Sun Tzu wrote in his work The Art of War, I certainly believe that the principles of outwitting opponents through "speed, stealth, flexibility, and a minimum of effort" have their place. [8] conservative 19:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
OK, your decision of course. But ..... am I to understand that if an anti-evolutionist were to ask in public you'd tell them why the picture was removed?--British_cons (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
British cons, are you aware of what happened to the atheism article as far as the search engine ranking results? I am glad to see the same thing is happening to Conservapedia's evolution article. conservative 22:21, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin and Feminism

Palinism’s Threat to Feminism: "Sarah Palin is everything they hate, because she is everything they never could be or chose not to be. There is a new type of woman out there who can juggle both a family and a career." My impression is that Sarah Palin considers herself a feminist. She has been a member of "Feminists for Life"[1], she spoke positively about shattering the glass ceiling, she has referred to herself as a "product of Title IX"[2]. While she is pro-life, she has referred to her decision to keep her Downs baby as her "choice", and her daughter's decision to keep her baby, as her "choice". How can she be a threat to feminism if she is a feminist, albeit a pro-life one? And why does the author think that feminists have "chosen a barren existence, in the name of a movement"? In addition, since when are conservatives promoting the idea that mothers of small children should take on high-pressure jobs that require long hours and lots of travel? Sarah Palin may be a role model in some ways. But the idea that she somehow "can juggle both a family and a career" is an insult to those moms who have turned down opportunities because they felt that they were needed at home, at least while their children were small. If Mrs. Palin gets the job, she will have to settle for "quality time" rather than "quantity time" with her two young children. The two are not the same. Let's be careful about the message we are sending. --Hsmom 12:06, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Update: Katie Couric asked Palin whether she considered herself a feminist. Palin answered "I do". [3] Since Palin is a feminist, this front-page Conservapedia entry simply doesn't make sense - Palin isn't "everything feminists hate" - she is a feminist herself. I think we should remove this entry, as it is clearly not based on the facts. --Hsmom 08:40, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
All the leading feminists are harshly critical of Palin. The leading feminists do say that Palin is everything they hate, starting with Palin being pro-life and extending to other issues also.--Aschlafly 08:45, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Would most other feminists consider her a feminist? Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 1 October 2008 (EDT) P.S. This was directed at Hsmom, not realising that Andy had added a comment.
Though not directed at me, the answer to Philip's question is obviously "no". In fact, most leading feminists today would scoff at the suggestion that Palin is a feminist. It would be as though Biden claimed to be "pro-life", which would be greeted by sarcasm from anyone knowledgeable.--Aschlafly 09:29, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
The feminists' viewpoint that I've read/heard is, yes, Palin is everything they dislike, but not because she "isn't" a feminist, or even female; it's because she's pro-life and conservative. But those same feminists state up front that since she's chosen a career and a family, and is successful at both, she "is" also a feminist. Feminists argue amongst themselves frequently about abortion, prayer in schools, home-schooling, whether mothers of toddlers should take time out of work, etc. etc. The working definition of "feminist" is one who believes that women are empowered equally to men in making their own choices for their lives and that women should be paid equally with men for equal work. The great majority of feminists also hold mostly liberal views on everything else, but, believe it or not, many younger feminists are conservatives. Palin is a prominent example.--Leansleft 09:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
If one interprets feminism to be something other than what the leading feminists believe, then of course Palin could be a feminist. But that word play does not accomplish much. Perhaps Palin is trying to recapture the word for conservative women, or perhaps she's not entirely familiar with what leading feminists in universities and Washington, D.C. believe. No one would fault Palin for that, because what leading feminists believe is incredible. But suffice it to say that leading feminists are pro-abortion, anti-beauty contests, and anti-conservative. Palin is the opposite.--Aschlafly 09:46, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
The real issue here seems to be over the definition of "feminist". Palin considers herself one because of her pursuit of career in balance of her role as a mother, her support of Title IX, which Aschlafly opposes. While she is passionately pro-life, she has also been on-record discussing her decision to have her son Trig as a "choice" and her daughter's "decision on her own" to "keep her baby", so there's an implication that while she's against Roe v. Wade, she thinks about women as making these types of decisions as having choices under the law. I think Leansleft expressed the point that matters well, so I'll second it - a label like "feminist" or "Christian" is used as much to identify what holds people in common as to identify what they differ over. There's an overlap in the positions Plain holds compared to "mainstream" feminists, just as there are between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. Deciding whether Palin is a "true feminist" or not is like debating whether a Catholic is a "true Christian" or not - it's more meaningful to focus less on the label and more on the specific issues that people like Palin are for or against. --DinsdaleP 09:57, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Title IX is a good example. When I went to high school in the 1960s, there were no sports for girls. By the time Palin went to school, she was able to play competitive basketball. An academic feminist might argue that without that sports experience in her formative years, the world today would never know of any "Sarah Barracuda." I'm not an academic feminist and therefore I can't debate the point pro or con; but I strongly suspect that Palin would agree.--Leansleft 10:24, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I think it's wrong to be focusing on the issue of whether or not Palin can juggle career & family simultaneously in determining whether Palin is a feminist. Some women can do that, others choose not to: feminism exalts the opportunity to choose either lifestyle, so feminism is silent as to whether or not it's good that Palin has chosen that course. There are some worrying anti-feminist trends in Palin's campaign thus far, though.
First, Andy, your definition of "liberal feminism" is a straw man. No-one seriously argues that feminism is anti-conservative. It's pro-woman, and pro-whatever ideology most helps women gain equality in the workplace and in society. And on that topic, there are significant areas where Palin is not on board. As Steinem put it, "she opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality," and it's not just on the area of abortion. More worrying, though, the mere selection of Palin is a little anti-feminist: the assumption that women have to support any female candidate is deeply paternalistic & betrays "a worrying degree of essentialism," meaning, reduction of women to their gender only. One step forward, perhaps, but several steps back.-BartonG 10:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
On the one hand I would concede that feminism has probably moved on from the most radical viewpoints within it. On the other, I doubt that it's as tame as merely "one who believes that women are empowered equally to men in making their own choices for their lives and that women should be paid equally with men for equal work". But I'm not an expert on it, so I couldn't say either way. Philip J. Rayment 10:59, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Definition of feminism, from Merriam-Webster online: (1) "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" and (2) "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." [9] Note lack of statement of beliefs, beyond "equality" and "rights and interests." Dinsdale has nailed it, I think; there are feminists and there are Feminists and there are Feminazis and there are Feminists for Life. Palin is a self-identified feminist, whatever that may or may not mean to her. Other self-identified feminists loudly dislike her, but they are not arguing her self-identification.--Leansleft 12:13, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. []