From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A few comments on a basically-good article:

  • VMI? What's that, please?
  • There's no citations at all (perhaps they are still coming?). Not that I disagree with any of it to any significant extent.
  • "The stereotype that Jews are all successful and wealthy underlay much of the violence and hatred that defined the Holocaust...". I would question this. Was it the stereotype that they were all successful and wealthy that was the problem, or a suspicion that they achieved this success and wealth by less-than-honest means?

Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Citations are forthcoming. VMI is "Virginia Military Institute," as clicking the link shows. And the Jewish stereotype - it'd be both.-AmesGyo! 11:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, you mean that link that was red when I asked the question?. I still think it should have the full name, though, but I can do that. Philip J. Rayment 11:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this uncited article still blocked? I'd be tempted to buy into the stereotype that the editors here prefer to avoid updating controvertial pages. Maestro 00:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)


Andy requested that the material be objective. As such, I removed any opinion, merely discussing how Ginsburg's opinion grounded its analysis in a discussion of stereotypes. This is objective fact; TK I will e-mail you the reporter-image of the decision if you want it. As it has been corrected to accord with Andy's request, it was reverted.-AmesGyo! 21:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Fine by me, Ames. I will resist reverting and locking it. I emailed Andy my opinion, since you didn't ask mine. I am sure he will know better how it needs to be. Please keep on winning friends and influencing people as you are. I so enjoy your idea of collaboration. ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:30, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor seemed to like it, and so did Phil, with minor changes that were fixed. They are pretty reasonable, and often disagree with me, so I especially value their concurrence in this case.-AmesGyo! 21:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL. Ok, have it your way, Ames. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

What does that mean?-AmesGyo! 21:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • The VMI case does not belong there at all, per Andy. Can you not see the Liberal opinion of the Judge(s) are merely being converted into "facts"? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

First I would disagree that the decision is liberal. Second, though, whether or not it is liberal, it is more than mere opinion. Calling a decision "Opinion" is a polite convention, but be not deluded into thinking that it is not the law of the land. This Wiki is not the province for Andy to carry out his crusade against bad decisions. Rather, it is the place to state as a fact what the law is. TK, this is shockingly ignorant. Whether or not judicial decisions rest on a political slant, that does not mean that they are not 'factual and LEGAL.-22:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, this article is unequivocally worse. Please respond to the notes on your talk page. It's hard to want to improve this wiki when you remove good articles at every turn. Facts that disagree with you are still facts.-AmesGyo! 19:10, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Ames, I spent far too much time on my talk page responding to your attempts to include an opinion in a factual page here. Opinions, even legal opinions, are merely that.
Do you dispute the factual accuracy of anything I added? Be very specific.--Aschlafly 19:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I dispute your pov-pushing in the "political correctness" diatribe (it can be called nothing less), and I dispute the reasons behind removing the lines I had in the article. Also, if you want to talk about the "legal opinion" issue, I've rebutted your contentions at long length on your talk page.-AmesGyo! 19:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, our rules prohibit converting opinions into fact, and I'm not going to waste any more time on the obvious reasons why. Your objection to my entry is not specific enough. I'm moving on to other entries at this point.--Aschlafly 19:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, your obvious reasons are not obvious. If they are, they've been rebutted below. Your dedication to ideology above facts is embarrassing.-AmesGyo! 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Repost of Unanswered Response to Andy

Andy, decisions that are good law are facts about the law, not opinion. Dred Scott is obviously distinguishable from VMI - one has been overruled! So to say that Dred Scott represents facts about slavery or law is false, because the Court has repudiated it. However, to say that VMI represents an accurate assessment of gender discrimination law in America is prima facie correct. As to the problem of the "experts," you should know as well as I do that court opinions incorporate expert testimony and "make findings" incorporating expert testimony. Court opinions are some of the most expert documents in America. Your knowledge of, and respect for, the law is embarrassing. How do you expect your students to learn if you do not allow them to be exposed to facts, no matter how much you may disagree with them!?

I also get that you do not want to further this conversation. I argue that your capacity as an educator mandates you to do otherwise. You have already convinced Reginod (see his "Dicta," a statement of the rules of Conservapedia) and TK that Supreme Court opinions, far from being settled law, are in fact "opinion," free to be disregarded as a moral force if one disagrees with their holdings. You have convinced them that the most respected legal institution in the land does not deserve their respect. If you are any sort of educator, you are required to correct this mistaken perception of the way the law, and indeed the country, actually work. As a lawyer you are similarly compelled. You may not disregard Supreme Court law as mere "opinion" where convenient. Even when you disagree with it and challenge it in court, it is still the law, and that the Court has held it still makes it legal FACT, not opinion.-AmesGyo! 01:31, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

"20-year-old male radicals"

The term "radicals" seems to me like we are giving in and using the MSM's language, being ambiguous, and not making sense in the sentence it is used. It is not specified (though can be assumed) what kind of "radical" they might be, but perhaps more importantly, it doesn't really fit in the sentence. When talking about stereotypes being using in security, an 80-year-old nun can be recognized easily as such by physical observation, but being "radical" does not necessarily change your hair color or any other physical property--rather, it is a belief system. Either the nun should be referred to instead as a Catholic, or the term "radical" should be clarified, in my opinion. Would anyone object to the use of the dreaded "M-word"? Sure, there are other kinds of "radicals," but I am assuming that both the writer and other editors here where thinking Muslim terrorist.