User talk:Aschlafly/Archive43

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Name change

I have been informed that Conservapedia no longer permits user names in all-caps. I have been advised to contact you about changing my user name. Can you change it from "FOIA" to "Foia"? FOIA 09:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Can you please remove the spinning logo from the main page? The only reason I uploaded it was to test the .gif file type on CP. It's definately not done yet. If you would like me to I can try to finish it. I still have to turn the "Conservapedia" silver, and make it so that the flag on the back isn't backwards. I was thinking it might look good if I made the back a solid color, and put "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" on the back. Let me know what you think.

Thanks, --Chris 13:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It looks great already. Feel free to improve it, but only replace it when you have an improvement. Something is better than nothing, and don't allow a desire for perfection to impede progress now.--Aschlafly 15:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Map of our viewers

see Talk:Main_Page#worldwide_map_of_the_location_of_our_visitors, if you install a certain package Conservapedia could load a map on the main page that shows the locations of our viewers -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative Action?

In response to the following:

Don't continue to reinsert incorrect information. There's never been racial or gender restrictions on becoming president.--Aschlafly 22:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Did that mean that before the American Civil War slaves were free to change career paths, or even run for President? Interesting.Pluto 19:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Pluto, if you were taught in public school then this may surprise you, but before the Civil War there were many blacks who were not slaves and, of course, blacks have always met the constitutional qualifications to be president.--Aschlafly 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in part, ruled that slaves and their descendants, regardless of whether descendants were slaves or not, were not and could never be "citizens" of the United States. Therefore, they were ineligible under Article Two, which states that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen. Blacks weren't and could never be citizens according to Dred Scott v. Sandford, and therefore did NOT meet the constitutional qualifications for president. --Jareddr 19:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
^True. Also, there were free states that excluded blacks from serving on juries and skilled occupations far below the level of President. Illinois and Indiana had laws banning blacks from their states entirely. Only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote.
Also, 95% of blacks lived in the South, mostly as slaves.Pluto 20:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr has a unique interpretation of the significance of the Dred Scott decision, which of course had nothing to do with qualifications for president. And of course it said nothing about gender.--Aschlafly 21:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I think you should admit you were wrong here. No big deal I suppose but I don't think it is credible to argue Blacks always had the right to become president. Even if you are technically correct that there was no specific positive disqualification on their being president, this may be because there was no attempt by any black people to become president as the legal outcome of such an attempt was obvious until after the civil war.--DamianJohn 21:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't wish to offend, but Jareddr's "interpretation" of Dred Scott is very, very, very very far from unique. Only an American citizen can become President, and the Dred Scott decision held that no black American was a citizen. Roger Taney's decision said that blacks have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."Pluto 22:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
What happened to your false claim about gender? As to race, Dred Scott did not "hold" what you say. Rather, that was a non-binding portion of the opinion, which was widely criticized and ignored.--Aschlafly 23:25, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
As to gender, women couldn't vote until the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Dred Scott was unpopular with Republicans, but was popular with Northern Democrats, Southerners and the border states.Pluto 23:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Right about gender, but I thought you originally said women could not become president. That's false.
As to Dred Scott, you're probably right that it was supported by the Democratic Party for that brief period of 1857 through 1865. Good thing the Republican Party was soon running the show, right?--Aschlafly 08:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Andy, so according to your version of American History, blacks were citizens recognized by the government from the signing of the Constitution right through the signing of the Fourteenth Amendment? Because I'd love to see some citations that state that blacks were considered citizens during that time. --Jareddr 09:49, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps this "information" regarding their citizenship could be placed on CP someplace. I'd be interested to see the reactions of other readers finding out blacks were citizens before the Civil War. --Jareddr 09:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I am glad sanity has prevailed and you no longer seem to be asserting that Blacks could always be president of the USA. However if I read you right you seem to be clinging to the idea that women were always eligible for the presidency. I repeat my statement for women, if they couldn't vote, how on earth could they run for public office?--DamianJohn 10:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is flawed. It's amazing the lengths some go to defend a falsehood. There has never been a racial or gender-based limitation for the presidency. Don't accept the truth if you insist, but I'm not going to allow repetition of falsehoods on my talk page. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Is there a citizenship requirement for presidency? Yes. So the question becomes, Aschlafly, were blacks considered full-fledged natural-born citizens before the Civil War? --Jareddr 10:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

In Andy's defense on this, "the descendants of slaves" and "black Americans" are not perfectly contiguous populations. A little research will show that there were black colonists who came as free citizens originally (or, in some cases, as indentured servants.) Dred Scott, therefore, does not speak directly to the question of whether an African-American can be President, regardless of whether it was binding or not. --Benp 11:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Technically, there is no law that would favor Obama over McCain either. I thought the issue there was some non-legal alleged bias. When large groups of people couldn't vote, that points to a bias. Can a bias that obvious be found against white male Presidential candidates? Also, Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, slave or free.
And yes, it is a good thing the Republicans fought against a law as bad as Dred Scott. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, as well as the fact that Democrats supported Dred Scott.Pluto 11:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

At the moment, I'm looking specifically at the debate over whether or not it was technically historically possible for a black man to run for President; the larger issue is a debate into which I don't care to enter at this time. As far as the assertion that Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, I'd have to ask for a citation on that; having reviewed the text of the decision, what I found was that it applied specifically and explicitly to slaves and their descendants. Thus, you would be correct in asserting that slaves could not run for President; Andy would be correct in asserting that there was no law prohibiting someone from running for President simply because he was black. --Benp 11:57, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Having read the decision as well, it seems that they were extending it to all blacks, as opposed to just slaves. For instance, "And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs's Tenn.Reports, 331.", "in no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights,"
"The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790, and confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free white persons."
"Neither was it used with any reference to the African race imported into or born in this country; because Congress had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them."
And finally, "Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States."
All these sections seem to refer to those of color, free or slaves, as separate and not considered citizens in the Dred Scott decision. --Jareddr 15:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Obama and Abortion

I have posted the entire quote on the talk page clearly showing it is not in reference to abortion. Are you going to respond to it or just keep labeling it as "misleading information"? StatsMsn 19:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)Q

I read your (unreferenced) quote. The "punished" phrase clearly applies to being able to have an abortion. It's remarkable that anyone would deny that.--Aschlafly 19:51, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Aside the fact that he's talking about providing more information on contraception immediately before making the quip, and then immediately after the quip states that it makes no sense not to give them the information on contraception. Where on earth does he mention abortion? StatsMsn 19:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
First of all, liberals support abortion as a form of contraception. Second of all, abortion is the only plausible meaning for avoiding the so-called punishment for the so-called mistake. There is no other plausible meaning for that phrase. Obama certainly is not supporting adoption with his phrase!--Aschlafly 20:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Um... abortion is not a form of contraception, and no liberal would support it as one. I'm willing to bet you couldn't find one reference to support the phrase. Also Obama could easily be referring to comprehensive sex education, if his daughter did make a mistake (have sex outside of marriage) then he would not want her punished with a baby, instead he would rather her use appropriate protection in order to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. That's the only view which is supported by the quote, which has Obama talking about sex education immediately before and immediately after the quip, and not mentioning abortion once. StatsMsn 20:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
StatsMsn, you're clueless. The abortion industry, and politicians it supports, do promote abortion as a form of contraception and profit immensely from it in that manner. The term "mistake" can only plausibly refer to a pregnancy. Obama's quote was widely interpreted by others in this obvious manner, and it is consistent with his public positions on abortion. Have last wordism here as I expect you'll insist, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this particular issue.--Aschlafly 20:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Contraception from L. contra + (con)ception. By definition abortion cannot be a form of contraception because it occurs after conception. --ProfHigginsPhD 20:22, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Dear Andrew Schlafly,

I understand that Wikipedia has some liberal bias, and I was very interested in checking out your site to see what you deem a fair and unbiased and “trustworthy” alternative.

What I found instead was disappointing.

I am having trouble believing that you truly do not realize how absurdly biased your site is. Surely you must have noticed that more than 90% of the views your site gets are from people coming to stare in disbelief at your incredibly biased and misinformed delusional and pathetic excuse for a website.

Even WIKIPEDIA, which you claim to be the epitomy of liberal bias, has a page with a list of criticisms of itself. You have no such page, which I’d expect you would have, to be fair.

Any arguments against your views are cited as either liberal, biased, or atheist/pro evolution. You, quite frankly, are blind. I would, quite literally, sooner go to Uncyclopedia for information than to this website.

You blame as much as possible, true or not, on atheists and homosexuals, your sexism article is so one sided it’s a mobius strip, and until my suggestion yesterday, you had no article on Floods in the natural disaster sense, only an article on “the great flood”.

Your atheism article… oh, gee, WHERE DO I BEGIN? Let’s start with the first thing that catches my eye: the “Atheist Symbol”. Schlafly, I hate to break it to you, but not only is that not an atheist symbol, but they don’t HAVE ONE. They’re NOT A RELIGION. They don’t go to churches, they don’t have holy books, and they CERTAINLY don’t have that generic google-searched model of an atom as a “symbol”. Next, on to the definition of atheism. It’s not the DENIAL of the existence of god. That would require all atheists to know deep down that there IS a god. Atheism is actually the BELIEF that there is no god. Which brings me to the part of the Atheism page that shows theories that atheists don’t exist… I’m sorry, but you’re trying to support a claim that I, being an Atheist, know is wrong. It’s not just an opinion. If you’re trying to tell me that I believe in god, THAT… IS… NOT… TRUE! I do NOT believe in god. In FACT, neither do the Buddhists, the feral children (in case you don’t know, that’s a human raised by animals), or all but THREE of the religions in the world. Listen you FOOL! Your claim has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDING in truth, proof, or arguably even sanity. And yet you put it on the Atheist page with such support that the reader would think half the world agrees with it.

Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Nearly everything you use to argue your points is a mined quote, an empty assertion, a disturbing censorship of the facts, or an outright lie.

You also wield “teh ban hammer” with greater efficiency than John Henry, and with much less human mercy. You will ban anyone who so much as INSULTS you, an act almost UNHEARD of on WIKIPEDIA. This also means you’ll likely ban me for posting this. However, that would mean that you would be verifying one of my accusations against you.

Now, Mr. Schlafly, is that something you’re willing to do?

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

To whoever wrote this message, I would suggest that you edit it to make it significantly shorter. Even the most well-developed arguments, as long as they exceed an easy-to-digest length, will be dismissed on this site as "liberal." --IlTrovatore 22:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
At first glance I thought that you wrote it, given that yours was the first signature and your message was on the same indent level! But I've now fixed that. Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Please go to the footnote for "an atheist symbol". I then suggest you wrangle with the United States government. Conservative 22:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

IlTrovatore is right here. The unsigned rant above is too long to be taken seriously or even read. Take your best point, whoever you are, and state it concisely. We don't have time otherwise. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy - it took me less than a minute to read the rant and less than three to concoct this executive summary for you: Really not all that time-consuming. (Note the following is a summary of the above entry and does not necessarily reflect my views)

1.CP is too biased, just as it claims WP is. 2.WP has a page dedicated to self-criticism - why not CP? 3.Many arguments presented by you and others lack intellectual depth and rely on blaming the familiar bugbear of liberalism. 4.The atheism article is especially problematic in its fundamental assumptions. 5. The site bans dissenting editors on a regular basis. AliceBG 23:05, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much, Alice! Responses below:
1.CP is too biased, just as it claims WP is.

REPLY: CP discloses its point-of-view, and misleads no one. WP conceals its point-of-view and misleads many.

2.WP has a page dedicated to self-criticism - why not CP?

REPLY: I'm fine with a page of criticism. We allow criticism here freely on many pages, as you can see. By the way, WP's page about its bias censored my edits there over time. I doubt WP allows clear, meaningful criticisms.

3.Many arguments presented by you and others lack intellectual depth and rely on blaming the familiar bugbear of liberalism.

REPLY: Be specific, as our entries are.

4.The atheism article is especially problematic in its fundamental assumptions.

REPLY: Take that up with its authors. I don't write every entry here, obviously. In fact, my edits are less than 5% of this site.

5. The site bans dissenting editors on a regular basis.

REPLY: For vandalism or rule violations, yes. For ideology, no.--Aschlafly 23:12, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't dismissing his "rant." I actually took the time to hear him out and realize that he made some cogent points. I was merely helping him to be aware of how to best avoid "teh ban hammer." --IlTrovatore 16:16, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't refer to it as a rant - merely the response of someone who Conservapedia has offended. I also noticed that it did not take long to read, and I agree with what he has to say. I also find it fascinating how all the REPLY's do not actually reply to any of his points, just tell him to go elsewhere with his complaints or give slick non-answers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthebrick2 (talk)

I disagree, the replies are quite clear. When we criticize wikipedia, we have a page of examples to support it. In order to lodge such a complaint about this great website, I challenge someone to make a page about specific criticisms; only then can we really address such a rant. Loyal conservapedians like myself can only refute an argument if it has supporting details which we can analyze. Try giving us an example of someone who was banned without a good reason. Unfortunately, we have to be tough on valdalism etc. because there are so many liberals who want to destroy the website. Regardless, we will only block a liberal if the liberal is breaking a rule, never simply due to ideology- try giving us an example otherwise, so we can consider it. --RoyS 16:43, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

You asked me to write here to discuss your deleting my edits on the "professor values" page. As it stands now, it claims that a professor cannot get tenure if he/she, say opposes abortion. Well, that's not so. My edit offered a few "counterexamples". You also could add that a fair fraction of the Harvard Economics Department has served Republican presidents. I'm a long tenured professor who has been on maybe 50 tenure decisions over the years. In none of these was the candidate's political views a factor.


My edits to the homeschooling page were to improve the factuality and readability of the article. I thought that I would clean it up a bit, but after I saw that most of the citations refer only to themselves, I figured it was a lost cause.

From your rules:

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]
  2. Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5]

The author of this article broke both these rules. As far as I can tell, the edits I made fall well within the rest of the commandments. If I have failed to follow them in any way, please let me know.


My cursory review found that you deleted how homeschoolers win math contests. Is that correct?--Aschlafly 08:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

but that would have nothing to do with them being homeschooled, just with the factr that they probably are smart on their own. PastafarianFSM 16:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

yeah, if homeschoolers were generally better at math, solely because of how they were homeschooled, that would require all homeschooling parents to be automatically smarter than professional teachers. --JackSmith 15:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

A request

Please visit my talk page, I believe you will find what I posted interesting. Wandering 10:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Hello? Are you even going to acknowledge my requests that you explain your reversions of my edits, which you then threatened to block me over? Wandering 15:57, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you purposefully ignoring me? Wandering 19:05, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
When you improve the quality of your edits, I'll increase the priority of your questions. Sound fair? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
But you haven't addressed why my edits haven't been up to your standards (or how I removed information from the professor values article), and have threatened to block me if I make any more that you don't like. You're a teacher - don't you think people learn better when they know what mistakes they've made? Wandering 19:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

"Wanted Pages" Page

Where did the wanted pages go? I found that a nice jumping-off point for contributions. --IlTrovatore 16:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Click on "Recent Changes" on the left, and then on the Top Right of that screen is a link for "Wanted Pages"--Jareddr 16:35, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Signing up

Why is Conservapedia not allowing people to sign up? -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

That was temporary. Registration has been reopened. Thanks for noting this.--Aschlafly 17:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Your Violation of Conservapedia Rules

Sir, your reversion of my edits on the page of Barack Obama are in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. If you will not follow the rules and allow me to remove statements that violate these Commandments, then I will report you. This is not open to interpretation. "Liberal POV" statements can be removed, but conservative statements in violation of the rules are still in violation of the rules. I insist you stop. -Aehlinger

No, we allow logical and presumptive statements having truth that can hardly be questioned, as in the statement that Obama was the presumptive nominee before it was official. Don't delete obviously true statements before there has even been time to add citations.--Aschlafly 18:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I have made no such statements. I cite with official web pages. I never made ANY assumptions, like saying Obama was the presumptive nominee before last Saturday. I remove statements that unabashedly use the word "Presumably", which violates Conservapedia Commandment 5. I state that he is a law professor - which was a title bestowed upon him by his own university. They said it themselves, and I don't know how you can possibly argue that. This site has become a bastion for conspiracy theories with no verification - something explicity forbidden by its own documentation and goes against all principles the site stands for. --Aehlinger

I agree with Aehlinger. The quote from Bill Clinton is exceptionally misleading - Clinton was flat out wrong: TIME criticized him for the false statement, Obama made a speech against the war in 2002, and he voted against it. While it is true that Clinton referred to his opposition as a fairy tale, it is not, in fact, a fairy tale, so your claim in "Dear Andrew Schlaffly" that "CP misleads no one" seems absurd in this light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthebrick2 (talk)

Legitimate Criticism Raised on Barack Obama Article


Please reconsider using overly emotive images and language in this project. It does your website no favours in terms of credibility. In fact, I would go so far as to say the reason you are mocked on the blogosphere is because you all seem to be quixotically unaware of how ridiculous you seem, the extent to which you indulge in double standards on articles about politicians you don't like and then have the bare faced affrontary to claim Wikipedia is overly critical of conservatives. How about doing to others as you would like done to you? The article on Barack Obama is full of your beloved Placement Bias. The images contain Obama standing at the pledge of allegiance without thumping his chest like a good patriot. You and I are both intelligent enough to understand that the rumours that have made these pictures spread are nothing more than an elaborate smear job by racists who fear the election of a black man as President. Please reconsider the effects this smear campaign has on people like me, an African American.

I came here originally amused but slightly baffled at how people could have so much time on their hands. Together I think, we can make this place work. TBarret 21:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I have no way to verify your claims of ethnicity, nor does it matter. Surely you don't think your argument has greater weight depending on what your ethnicity is.
No one is criticizing Obama based on his race. But he's not immune from criticism based on his race either. Surely you agree with that.--Aschlafly 21:42, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy, I'm puzzled. Believe me, I think Obama is worthless and I'm only glad that we'll be able to beat him so soundly in the fall, but what kind of criticism based on his race did you have in mind? BryonRichards 01:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe what andy meant, is that Obama's race does not give him immunity from criticism. And please refrain from parody. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 02:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Right. Obama is not immune from criticism due to his race.--Aschlafly 08:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Certainly he is not immune from criticism. However, the flag pin controversy is a front by the right who want to use fear to get a Republican elected. Lies like, 'Obama is anti-soldier' only make you look more foolish, and most see past that. You have no idea how angry the African American community is over the flag pin controversy - We are sick of fighting the wars (We contribute more young men and women per head of population than the white population) and then get labelled as unamerican. If the right continues this tactic, you will lose any hope of EVER gaining the African American vote beyond the insignificant single digit it is now. TBarret 09:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

To say that all of Barack Obama's accomplihments are from afirmative action is both insulting and an opinion, and should be removed. the whole article needs to be re written to be less offensive, not one sided, and factualy accurate. PS- up until recently, John McCain did not wear a flag pin on his lapen PastafarianFSM 15:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's taxpayer funded evolution claim

…what's your opinion on this? --MakeTomorrow 20:33, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Unless the "scientist" makes his data and evidence available for review by others, his claims are worthless. Keep in mind that in the past evolutionists have repeatedly perpetrated frauds, sometimes for decades, such as the Piltdown Man. With folks like yourself accepting whatever they say as gospel truth, they have no incentive to tell the whole truth. Recall the dinosaur-bird fossil hoax in Scientific American about eight years ago? Did you fall for that one also?--Aschlafly 23:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, why "scientist"? Secondly, what makes you think it hasn't been made available for review? Thirdly, did Behe put all his papers up for review? Fourth, The Piltdown man was a hoax on evolutionists, not by them. And finally, why dismiss this out of hand? AdenJ 01:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

First, I find Richard Lenski to be more one-sided in his writings than I would expect from an objective scientist. I think Lenski is just looking for ways to justify his preconceived views against critics of evolution. Note, for example, that he puts "intelligent design" in quotes, so he shouldn't mind if the term scientist is put in quotes in referring to him. [1]
Second, the article lacks any statement about availability of the work for independent review, which suggests to me it is not.
Third, Behe is open about his work and I'd expect him to welcome independent review.
Fourth, the Piltdown Man and numbers other frauds (you never responded to the dinosaur-bird fossil hoax) were perpetrated by evolutionists. They could not happen without the active participation and promotion by evolutionists. Were you fooled by the dinosaur-bird fossil hoax by National Geographic?--Aschlafly 06:18, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

In response, I question the way you say "scientist" the same way I would question the way you say "Professor" Obama as it sounds sarcastic and mocking. Whether or not that is what you imply is beside the point as it comes across that way. Also, just because an article does not state there was no sharing or review of the data does not mean there wasnt any (New Scientist is a pop-science mag, not a science review) and is cynical to think otherwise. Thirdly, Behe and other such researchers have been less than forthcoming with review and dont take well to criticsm (you can say the same about evolutionists but that doesnt mean one is better than the other in this regard). Piltdown Man and the like were perpetrated by wanna-be's and glory-hogs and would be hard to prove otherwise unless the proverbial 'red hand' was shown and we could prove that these hucksters were trying to push an evolutioary POV in order to discredit creation (please dont state thats what they were trying to do as I cannot be proved either way!). As for the bird-dino hoax, I didnt know about it so cant commment. I would like to discuss this further however its late in my world and time for bed. AdenJ 06:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

There's not really enough information there to be certain, but I offer the following comments about the linked article and the discussion above.

  • It's not clear just what the change was. There have been cases before of a mutation causing a bacteria to be able to do something that it couldn't do before, but due to a loss of genetic information, not a gain. This article doesn't say which was the case here.
  • Losses of information are common. If E.Coli is unique among bacteria in not being able to use citrate, this might be due to them losing this ability in the past. That is, the molecular machinery was there, but had become disabled. If so, it's likely that a chance mutation didn't give it the ability, but merely reversed the previous mutation that turned off the ability. In other words, the molecular machinery was already there.
  • If the scientist was able to reproduce the results, it indicates not a random mutation, but a non-random change, perhaps because it was designed to be able to switch.
  • Perhaps the reason that Behe et. al. don't take well to criticism is because much of it is unfounded, such as dismissal of ID on ideological rather than scientific grounds.
  • I don't know what you are referring to about Behe et. al. being "less than forthcoming with review", but of course it's almost impossible to get ID peer-reviewed.
  • Evolutionists are guilty in the first instance of using scare quotes around "intelligent design", "creation science", "scientist" when used of a creationist, etc., (see link in previous dot-point for an example) but I agree that doesn't justify doing it in return.
  • No mainstream creationist claims that Piltdown Man was a fraud by the evolutionists who promoted it, but neither is it correct to say that it wasn't by evolutionists. It was perpetrated on (willingly-accepting) evolutionists by another evolutionist.

Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Some (not all) evolutionists have perpetrated numerous frauds, and other evolutionists are fooled by them. The Piltdown Man was a fraud perpetrated for decades by people who knew, or should have know, it was fake. There's no way around that fact. And it is not the only example. The dinosaur-bird fossil fraud was promoted in Scientific American in the past decade.
An easy test is this: does the evolutionist permit outside, independent scrutiny of the data or materials underlying his claim? There is no legitimate reason to deny such independent review, yet many do.--Aschlafly 15:36, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
You and I have had this conversation about Piltdown Man before. Simply claiming that "there's no way around that fact" doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it a fact. What is a fact is that most if not all leading creationists consider it a fraud (by an evolutionist or two) on other evolutionists, who, although gullibly accepting it because it supported their worldview, were not deliberately perpetrating fraud. Archaeoraptor was promoted in National Geographic. You mentioned National Geographic before, but you've also now twice mentioned Scientific American. Are you talking about Archaeoraptor or something else? Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, the Piltdown Man was promoted and taught by evolutionists for decades. It was featured in school textbooks. If evolutionists are the scientists they claim to be, then they would not be so easily fooled by such a simple fraud. Clearly there was, at a minimum, deliberate ignorance by many evolutionists. The law holds such deliberate ignorance accountable, as it should.--Aschlafly 11:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Willing ignorance I can go along with. Now, about the dino-bird fraud...? Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it might be best to clarify some of Richard's work. He started his E.Coli project in 1988 and has been running the project for 20 years now; his protocols are available to the general public. The New Scientist article is not very technical but the paper at PNAS is. The change was based on one of his colonies developing the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E.Coli. This occurred around 31,500 generations and is based on the development of 3 proteins in the E.Coli genome. What his future work will be is to look at what caused the development of these 3 proteins around generation 20,000 of that particular colony. This is key since only this particular population was able to develop the ability to absorb the citrate and thus metabolize it. He has been able to reproduce the results but only by allowing that original colony to grow, the others still have not developed the proteins. It is random since the mutation does not occur in the same conditions or the same generation for the experiments but after thousands of generations the result is the same, citrate using E.Coli. As for the information argument, the entire genome of E.Coli has been known for decades and is part of the basis of this experiment in that the original colony’s genome was sequenced to trace all mutations. The paper is an interesting read but most scientists do not want to spend 20 years of their lives dedicated to watching bacteria mutate like Lenski does.--Able806 16:34, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

That the mutation didn't occur in the same generation doesn't mean that it's not purely random. Suppose you had to switch on a light on the other side of a room, but you couldn't enter the room. So you threw something at the switch. It takes twelves goes before you get lucky and hit it. Next time you try, you are not so lucky, and it takes 22 throws. Hitting the switch had an element of randomness in it. But the switch was designed. I'm speculating, of course, but this case may be similar, for all we know at this stage.
I'm not sure what relevance E.Coli's genome being known has. Despite comments elsewhere in this discussion about the research not standing if others find problems, that's the point of Piltdown. Because it supported their worldview, there was little motivation to question it. Until, of course, the evolutionary hypothesis had changed and Piltdown no longer fitted very well, so now there was motivation to question it. Which answers, by the way, the standard evolutionist response that it was, after all, evolutionists who uncovered the fraud. Yes, but only because they now had motivation to do so. I've often seen evolutionists claim that something or other supports evolution, when all it does is support natural selection or some other aspect of biology that creationists have no problem with. So although I accept that the research will be available for scrutiny, I don't accept that it will get much critical scrutiny, unless someone has some motivation to do so. I'd even suggest that the researcher's attempts to use this research to beat creationists with will "protect" his research from scrutiny, as who would want to overturn evidence against creationism? That can be career suicide.
Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, you maked some very good points, I hope to address them a bit. Keep in mind that I am not a part of Lenski’s research but I can describe some general things that can make this clearer. Let me first explain the importance of the genome being sequenced. By having E.Coli’s genome sequenced we know all of the proteins and their functions that occur in this organism, E.Coli has been studied for decades and a full map of all of it's molecular processes is avalible for researchers to use and understand. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why E.Coli is a preferred medium for conducting protein expression studies. Since we know the sequence in its entirety we can quickly identify mutations in the DNA and check to see the outcomes. Your switch analogy is great! It does show a layer of randomness as well as function through existing structure. The difference between this and what is being claimed by Lenksi is that there were no existing switches until a certain generation occurred, just to clairfy the ability to metabolize citrate was there just not the ability to bring the molecule into the cell to be metabolized.
I understand your statement about Piltdown, if anything the recent intelligent design movement has caused scientists to question their research and the research of others more, at least when it comes to evolutionary biology. Not to say it will not happen again, but the microscope has been adjusted to look at things a bit finer. As for releasing his work, I stated why in my last post. I am sure a microbiologist at ICR will look into it. (I am sorry if I got the acronym incorrect). --Able806 11:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Having the genome sequenced means that we know all the individual genes, and as there is (sort of) a 1:1 correspondence between genes and protein, we therefore effectively know all the proteins. But I imagine that we are still a very long way from understanding what all those proteins do, i.e. what they are for. Therefore, if the molecular machinery for all this was already there but simply turned off somehow, would we have already known that? So is it really true that there were no existing switches until a certain generation occurred? Or is it like a switch with a loose connection in which the first "mutation" presses the loose wire against the contact, enabling the switch to work when you succeed in hitting it when throwing something at it?
As for ICR (yes, a correct acronym) looking into this, they might well do so. But creationism gets essentially no government funding and there are nowhere near enough creationary scientists to check out all such claims. But if this one is prominent enough, this one might get checked.
Incidentally, this is still a problem for evolutionists, and for a reason that creationists have been arguing for a long time. It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved hundreds if not thousands of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore evidence that evolution can't explain our existence. (Of course one can always speculate and have faith that evolution occurred faster than this evidence indicates, but if a creationist expresses his faith in such a way, he is quickly told that that's "not science".)
Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Good morning Philip, we do know all of the proteins and functions for E.Coli. It is not really a 1 to 1 correspondence but no need to go into the molecular genetics, let us just go with what you propose for now. At this time we do know what all of the encoded proteins for E.Coli do, hence the reason E.Coli was chosen instead of yeast. Over the past 30 years microbiologists and molecular biologists have been working on mapping out the entire genome and protein cascades for E.Coli. To answer your question about an expression vector being turned off, yes we would know. Part of researching the E.Coli genome included expressing genes that were not normally expressed. (E.Coli has 4,639,221 base pairs that encode 4,377 genes, 4,290 genes encode protein while the remaining 87 code RNAs (tRNA, mRNA, ect.) This is why we would have discovered a non-expressed protein. It is true that until a certain generation Lenski was unaware of any genomic change that caused a large enough mutation to cause a dynamic effect. Coupled with what we know of E.Coli’s genome I would have to say there were no switches until a certain generation. Your electric circuit analogy is quite good; do you work with electronics per chance? To address your point, the loose switches, (I would say reading frame shifts) would have been detected through the gene expression research done previously. What Lenski is saying is that a mutation popped up that allowed for the development of the transport proteins for the citrate. He is looking for this mutation now. Consider that transport proteins do not have to be very large to do their job so this could be a very small mutation, perhaps 300 base pairs.
To address the length of time issue, you have to consider that 31,500 generations of E.Coli was only ~20 years. The mutation allowed for citrate to be metabolized thus increasing the rate of growth of the colony, as reported in Lenski’s paper. Consider that bacterial population growth is logarithmic, and for the most part population organism growth, it truly is dependent on the reproductive rate and mutation rate which differs among organisms. You would have to realize that it would not take the same number of generations for humans since humans tend to have much my dynamic environments. This experiment is in a very controlled environment to limit influences in order to retain traceability. Viruses for example mutate at a faster rate than bacteria but yet there are cases where certain species have a much higher mutation rate than what would be considered a lower species. The mutation rate is not dependent on the order of the organism in relation to how complicated (large genome), as much as it depends on if the genetics encode for a better mutation repair system and how that system works. A prime example would be modern day reptiles, most have very good molecular repair systems thus their mutation rates are much lower, sharks are another great example. As such we really should not expect to see short jumps on an evolutionary timeline for these species since their mutation rates and reproductive rates are pretty slow. Another point is how complicated the mutation is and how does it affect the protein cascade it occured in? In summary, to say that evolution takes to long is dependent on the organism and thus varies greatly. To say one way or another is to assume to much.--Able806 09:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Able806, you haven't seen the data and, indeed, the data are inexplicably unavailable for independent public scrutiny. Moreover, you won't even ask for the data and seem to have no interest in doing so. Yet you speak of Lenski's work as though it must be true and without flaws.
Able806, I think I haven't made myself clear. My reference to a switch was meant to be analogous to the molecular machinery of the bacteria, not to the DNA of the bacteria. The DNA is like the plans for the switch, not the switch itself. So I'm not suggesting that the DNA necessarily had defective plans for a switch as such (and being defective the switch wasn't built), but perhaps that it had plans for a defective switch! Yes, that would require a defective plan, but the switch still gets built; it just doesn't work properly. (Until a mutation fixes that problem.) So there wouldn't necessarily be unexpressed genes. Rather, there would be genes that express a defective switch.
I'm quite sceptical of what you appear to be saying, that scientists fully understand the workings of all the molecular machinery of E.Coli, how it interacts with other parts, and so on.
Your arguments about mutation rates appear confused and contradictory. Yes, Lenski had the E.Coli in a controlled environment, but it was also with varied environments to try and stimulate mutations! He wanted mutations; he wasn't trying to suppress them. Also, you indicate that "higher" species have lower mutation rates. This would include humans having lower mutation rates, especially given the repair machinery they also have. So you're not really helping your argument! Yes, how long evolution takes does depend on mutation rates, but given that we have some idea of them (this one result took 31,500 generations, and you've just argued that "higher" species (e.g. humans) would have lower rates), then it is quite legitimate to argue that this is evidence against evolution.
I develop railway timetables for suburban trains, by the way. Nothing to do with electrics at all really (except that they are electric trains!)
Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
This is how frauds and/or flawed work like the Piltdown Man and many others are spread and perpetuated. It's not scientific.--Aschlafly 10:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, if you read the text above you will see that I was commenting to Philip's questions. My response truly is independent of Lenski's work since the response deals with past research. Lenski did not do the work about the E.Coli's genome nor did he perform the work for the frame shift research. My reply dealt with that, so to infer that I believe Lenski's work without review is false. Like I have stated before, I make no claims to Lenski's E.Coli research being true until it is reviewed. Stop trying to associate me with something that I have never stated. I could care less about reviewing the data; I am not going to spend the days if not months reviewing it. I get paid to do other things. I never stated that it would not have flaws nor would I expect it to be flawless. Like I have stated before, Lenski's reputation as a scientist is clean so to assume the worse without reviewing is just speculation.
I saw your request below and I applaud that you are willing to make the effort. I only ask this, if you did not understand an ARA how would you make heads or tails of a C-G ratio analysis? This would only be a small part of the review needed to verify his work. If you are willing to learn the different analyses for the data then I would have to applaud you once again. I just mention this because if you are not familiar with how to review the data, he could give you false data and you would not know the difference.--Able806 11:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I looked at it briefly. Lenski's study is federally funded, and Lenski should make all the data available. I see some protocols and some conclusions about the data in the above link. I don't see the data themselves.
I find Lenski to be biased against intelligent design in his writings on the internet. Lenski is someone who benefits from federal funding of his studies while probably opposing federal funding of intelligent design. I'm skeptical that Lenski would allow a thorough review of his work by anyone other than a fellow evolutionist.
Keep in mind that most evolutionists believe the theory must somehow be true, regardless of what the evidence is.--Aschlafly 17:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, per PNAS submission guidelines "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." Richard has made his data sets available in the past to anyone who wanted to review it, I do not see him changing now.
Most of the evolutionary scientific community is biased against intelligent design, how does that relate to his research? He is trying to provide an example of recorded evolution. This is quite the ad hominem attack towards Richard since his bias truly has no reflection of the E.Coli mutating or not.
"Keep in mind that most evolutionists believe the theory must somehow be true, regardless of what the evidence is." The same can be said of many others but evidence is what really makes the difference. Correlation does not imply causation. If the data is explored and says otherwise then his research will be called into question and his status as a researcher will be lost. Just to point out, those examples you provided were debunked by scientists in the evolutionary field while performing their review of the work. That is how science works, research is presented and needs to hold up against evaluation or it is labeled as false.--Able806 17:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Here's the data for the arrays. And here's his email: I'm sure he's got thousands of equally huge pages of numbers that he'd be happy to share with you, Andy. --Leda 18:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't see the data for Lenski's claim, as stated in the New Scientist article, that "sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."[2] I presume that New Scientist has not see such data, and neither have you.
Please feel free to email Lenski and ask him to post and data that he thinks supports his central claim. And don't expect anyone to fall for the old trick of producing a mountain of worthless data. It is the data supporting the greatest claim that is needed.
By the way, Lenski's extremely pro-evolution point of view should have been disclosed in the New Scientist article to alert the readers. Based on his writings on the internet, I take it Lenski insists on 100% of federal funding to support the theory of evolution, just as his work was supported by tax dollars, but not one dime to go to anyone who criticizes it (such as intelligent design work). If you don't think that is bias, then I wonder you would consider to be bias.--Aschlafly 19:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
If you were replying to me just there, then you've missed my point. Bluntly: given the nature of the data he's collecting, how on earth would you be able to tell whether the relevant sections supported his claim or not? --Leda 20:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, Leda, do you seriously think the data cannot be presented in a clear manner??? Rest assured that, in fact, it can. But I'm equally confident that the data supposedly supporting the evolutionists' claim will never be presented in a clear manner for independent review.--Aschlafly 21:45, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, the data that Leda linked to is very clear, if you are trained to read and understand antibiotic resistance analyses. Data can be presented in a clear manner but it is only as clear as the person's training to understand it. Lenski's ARA is as clear as they come. Data is what it is, in the case of the link, it is the antibiotic resistance towards each identified gene. That does not tell you much unless you understand how antibiotics actualy work. The point is, if you want raw data you can not expect it to be simplified, if you want a clear version then you read the research paper. This is pretty much standard for all science, even creation science is performed this way, ask Philip.--Able806 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Fine, you're arguing the opposite of Leda, but my basic point remains the same: where is the data supporting the evolutionists' claim that "sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."[3] If you have it, then clearly present it. But I presume that New Scientist has not see such data, and that neither have you.--Aschlafly 23:32, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I will admit I have not seen the data, I never asked to see it since it would be a waste of time for me to review it without reason. I know Richard's work and he has put decades into his research to present his life's work without actual data would be insane. Here is the link to the current summary data for the experiment, it does get updated once they compile. The PNAS has seen the data or they would not have allowed publication. Since New Scientist is not a scientific journal you would be correct in that they would not need to see the data. Just to note, the change happened at 20,000 to cause the citrate to be metabolized, what happened at 31,500 was the actual metabolization. Lenski is reviewing that data to show what happened, as mentioned in the article. This could take some time if he plans on providing a molecular model. If you would like to see the raw data, then contact Lenski. Since it was a government funded study he is required by the award to provide information on his research, this includes data. Beyond that, to keep stating that he would refuse without asking is just making assumptions.--Able806 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, you have blind faith in Lenski, as though he were perfect. Those of us who are open-minded believe in independent checks and balances. Lenski claims to have made an extraordinary find, using taxpayer funding, and at a minimum he should make his data available for independent scrutiny and verification. Apparently he has not yet done so, and I do not expect he will. You're the one insisting his claim is true, and you should want the data yourself before spreading what may be flawed. Otherwise, I doubt that even proof of a flaw in the data would affect your belief about it.--Aschlafly 10:41, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Wait one second, I never stated I had faith in his project, I have faith in his ability to conduct scientific investigation, and there is a difference. His reputation as a scientist is clean, as in he has yet to conduct himself in any questionable way to jeopardize the integrity of his research. I am a full supporter of check and balance when it comes to scientific investigation, to not be, as a scientist, is to claim absolution over understanding. I am sorry but I know of very few active researchers that would ever "refuse" to provide all of their findings once they have published, and Lenski is no exception. To refuse, is to call into question the scientist’s integrity and therefore their ability to conduct “clean” research. As a side, since the research is funded by a grant once the study is complete and the grant is closed out, all research related materials are available to the public through the freedom of information act. Aschlafly, have you emailed Lenski to verify that he will not release his data? If not then making a claim that he would not is just speculation which I find absurd considering how research science is conducted in the United States. I am insisting that his ability as a scientist is not some far fetched claim; you have not provided any evidence to make the statement that he would refuse to provide the data you are inquiring. Perhaps before you make the claim, you should provide some supporting evidence. As for spreading the claim of his conclusion, well I can not say that I have considering my past posts, I have yet to say his research conclusion is true, just that his research record is clean. The facts are: Lenski performed research, his conclusions are such. Everything else is speculation at this time, until a review has been done of his work it is just his conclusions. As for a flaw in his data, well until the data is presented once again your statement is speculation. I do not take things at face value like you seem to be implying, if anything, I am highly skeptical.--Able806 11:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
How do you know that the data is not available? Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Look on his website, where I saw that the key data are not there.
Able806, you're claiming that a conclusion is valid, yet you refuse to look at the data. Lenski isn't perfect, even if were unbiased. Accountability -- and valid science -- depends on independent verification, and the person asserting the claim bears the obligation of ensuring that.--Aschlafly 11:37, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I have not said his conclusions are valid, it was in the last post. I said they are just that, his conclusions. I stated that I was not interested in wasting my time evaluating his data because it holds no professional intrest to me. I research metabolic biochemistry of eukaryotes, I could care less about prokaryotes nor am I an evolutionary biochemist. I never said Lenski is perfect, I said that his record is clean in reguard to his research. I do not disagree with your last statement, however, you have yet to show that Lenski is at fault for not allowing independent verification. As for his website, well I saw a copyright of 2000, and 2003 so it is hard to tell when it was last updated. I do know however that PNAS does have a restriction on research materal until the time of publication. This is just speculation, but perhaps Lenski had to withhold the data from being placed upon his website until the article was published in order to comply with PNAS publication guidelines. You tax statement is a bit misleading, the majority (~75% very rough but the actual figures are avalible in the congressional budget statements from the GAO) of research conducted in the United States is funded by tax payers, Lenski is not doing anything out of the ordinary by having funds awarded from taxes.--Able806 11:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Draft email to Lenski

Based on the comments above, I suggest the following draft letter to Lenski:

"Dear Professor Lenski,

Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claim, and the significance of your claim, that E.Coli had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations. In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000.
PNAS submission guidelines state that "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." Also, your work was apparently funded by taxpayers, providing further reason for making the data publicly available.
Please post the data supporting your remarkable claim so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions. Thank you.

--Aschlafly 09:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd leave this to a creation biologist who understands this sort of stuff far better than you or I do. Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Any independent review is welcome. So far, however, it doesn't seem like that has happened. I'll send the email now and we'll see if Lenski is even willing to make his taxpayer-funded data available for independent review.--Aschlafly 12:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I second Philip on this one. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 13:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Please contact whomever you'd like to review the data.--Aschlafly 13:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Okay, have done so, and I've linked their answer in this post. Just kidding. That is, I was kidding about contacting someone, but some people did ask, and a creation biologist has today posted a response to the claims. You can read it here. Incidentally, he does indicate that sufficient data has not yet been made available (although doesn't make an issue of that). Philip J. Rayment 08:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I vote for us to watch science news with interest for further developments, and then read the paper when it is published and the reviews of scientists, and then discuss it. That would ordinarily be the usual method. Do we really have to do some sort of grandstanding email exchange, and start plastering challenges up on the front page blog again? Didn't we learn our lesson after the Austin Cline nonsense?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Just to note, to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is not a small thing. Their rejection rate is high due to the quality they demand from their papers. To make publication says much about the paper's quality. Perhaps it might have been better if Aschlafly had a scientist selected to review the data before emailing Lenski. Otherwise it might seem a waste of time on Lenski's part due to no indication that Aschlafly is trained to review and interpret such data.--Able806 15:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Am I crazy, or isn't this paper what Andy had been demanding?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, however Aschlafly wants the raw data.--Able806 15:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

"Yes however"? So if that's not what Andy's wanting, does that mean that TomMoore is crazy?? :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:47, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe it :) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

This debate continues at its more appropriate place: Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog.--Aschlafly 09:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Request For Move

Can you move 2008 Presidential Elections from here: 2008 Presidential Election to here: United States Presidential Election, 2008? It would keep it consistent with the article titles of previous elections. Thanks! --Jareddr 08:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)


If you know anything about coding could you take a look at Template:Stub -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Block and threat

Why did I get blocked for one edit on Barack Obama, and have that followed up with a threat of a permanent block? I don't even know what I did wrong. The least you could do is post a message on my talk page (or maybe even tell me what rule I broke).JPohl 12:44, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

You reinserted a claim that the position of "Senior Lecturer" is equivalent to "Professor". Aside from being absurd, that claim had been addressed and reverted many times before, as reflected by the entry's history and talk page. It's getting tiresome for Obama supporters to insist on logical absurdities, and hence the warning.--Aschlafly 12:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Like the absurdity of the U of Chicago Law School putting out a press release stating that Obama "served as a professor". How absurd of them! --Jareddr 12:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I thought I was helping by putting in exactly what the university says about Obama. Also, your site should really enable blocked users to post on their talk pages. I can't access my e-mail from where I edit.JPohl 12:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Folks, I know how liberals love last wordism, and love the attention of continuing to fuss and insist on absurdities. A "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor". Accounts will be blocked if they insist on claiming it is. Finally got it?--Aschlafly 13:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to clear up my own confusion, because most of the time people don't say that "Senior Lecturer" is a "Professor". You say that, but most editors, quoting the press release, say that he "served as a professor"---note the lowercase "P". It's a slight difference that you seem to be confusing, and making, at least me, confused. Can you just state for the record, then, that "Senior Lecturer" does not "serve as a professor"? --Jareddr 13:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
No, that isn't what most editors here have said. The phrase "served as a professor" is meaningless and obviously not the same as claiming that he "was a professor." For example, someone who quips that he is "serving as your waiter" does not mean to say that he "is a waiter."
I'm not going to waste any more time on the fact, obvious to anyone with an open mind, that the position of "Senior Lecturer" is a far cry from the position of "Professor." Account blocking will begin for people who persist in making absurd claims.--Aschlafly 13:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Shutting down discussion on the topic and account blocking seems a case of last wordism--Jareddr 13:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
The University of Chicago clearly states that the position of senior Lecturer is equivalent to that of "professor." Why are you opposed to that fact being stated in the article? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 14:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
The press office of the Univ. of Chicago did not state that, and obviously a lecturer position is not equivalent to a professor position. Please read the vast debate on this topic on various talk pages here and do not insert something that is obviously false, even if you think someone else said it (it didn't).--Aschlafly 15:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually they did. Please read the statement given on their website. Is is not very long and should only take a minute or 2 to read. [4]--Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:33, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

FWIW, the statement says that he "served as a professor". --Jareddr 15:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, read my statement above about the difference between "serving as a waiter" and "being a waiter." And, though unnecessary to add this, if a press office at a college exaggerated someone's achievement on the faculty, would you automatically believe that despite clear evidence to the contrary?--Aschlafly 15:39, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Again, FWIW, you haven't provided "clear evidence to the contrary". Instead, you've insisted that it's "logical" and, I believe at one point, stated that "You don't need evidence for 2+2=4". But something being "logical" doesn't mean there's clear evidence to the contrary. And nothing provided thus far, despite how "logical" it may seem, is nowhere near as "clear evidence" as a statement by the institution in question. Again, just FWIW. --Jareddr 15:43, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
The statement by the college says that the position is equivalent to being a professor. If you choose to deny the fact, that is your prerogative. However, that does not make it true. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

A senior lecturer is not the equivalent of a full professor: if it were, he would be a professor and not a senior lecturer. It really isn't that difficult. Bugler 16:23, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

It is just a bit confusing when the employer said Obama "served as a professor". --Jareddr 16:27, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Clearly the quoted person is a Liberal and wanted to 'big up' the favoured candidate by exaggerating his achievements. Bugler 16:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Bugler, for stating the obvious.

Tim, does your view change when you realize that Obama was not being paid a professor's salary? Do you think the University of Chicago owes Obama back wages for a professor's salary?

Jareddr, it's only confusing if you think a press release or media can redefine the truth. They can't.--Aschlafly 16:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I guess I am confused because I thought an employer defines the truth of an employee's title and employment. Exactly who then does determine the title and status of an employee? --Jareddr 16:38, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr, no, press releases do not define the truth.--Aschlafly 16:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Why not structure the sentence like wikipedia does, and then say that there was controversy with the RNC and the Clinton camplaign pointing out his title was "senior lecturer", not "professor"? Here are the references that wikipedia gives: [5] and [6]. HenryS 16:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I haven't checked those links, but there's no denying what Obama's real position was. Truth is not relative here, or redefined by press releases.--Aschlafly 16:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia itself doesn't identify him as a professor. HenryS 16:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
As of 2:11 PM (GMT -8:00) it actually does. Regards, Aziraphale 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
"Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004).[19]". from early life and career section. HenryS 17:20, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I stopped reading after the first sentence of the second paragraph: "A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, served as a law school professor, and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004." Apparently, Wikipedia can't decide either. Nice try, though. Regards, Aziraphale 17:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I prefer referenced material. HenryS 17:37, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I suppose I would prefer it, too, if asked to choose, but as far as the statement "Wikipedia itself doesn't identify him as a professor," it both does in one place and doesn't in another. Regards, Aziraphale 17:50, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't read the lead, I expected this to be covered in the text, which it was. As far as that claim in the lead, it should be tagged as dubious. But this is a discussion for another place. HenryS 17:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
It is discussed in another place, on the talk page of the article you've cited. I expect your feedback will be as welcome there as anyone's. Regards, 18:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


Why is it that you proudly point to colleges where your students have been accepted, even though the list includes schools that you decry as liberal? --IlTrovatore 22:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think there is any shame in being wanted by liberals!--Aschlafly 23:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to point out that this seems like a prime example of "last wordism". You deleted my next question without any justification other than that it was "nonsensical," thereby giving the impression that you "won" this "argument." If I remove the Biblical allusion and ask it again, would you permit that the discussion continue? --IlTrovatore 17:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

IlTrovatore, sometimes a conservative can have the last word. Really, it's OK sometimes. Liberals do not always have to insist on the last word. But watch how they do.--Aschlafly 17:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

So is last word-ism not also a conservative style? Thus is it not just a general tool of the argumentatively weak, not partisan to either side of the spectrum? --AndrasK 21:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

No, it isn't. Often, and probably most of the time, conservatives (such as myself) do not insist on having the last word.
More generally, one can usually tell the political views of someone based purely on observing his style of arguing.--Aschlafly 22:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I would presume that offering examples of the style in use would be justifiable evidence no? Why just say something when you can provide an example after all. --AndrasK 12:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

He deleted my liberal parables page, which included Gandhi's story, because it was vandalized once. Trust me, the two sides do not get equal treatment.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I do not expect them to on this site, but I am trying to find a way that is acceptable to the "higher-ups" to bring at least a modicum of balance to the site. --AndrasK 13:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Tom Moore's entry invited liberal vandalism and to this day he refuses to accept any accountability whatsoever for what happened and still complains about the deletion of the magnet for the vandalism. AndrasK, if you take that same approach, then unfortunately a similar deletion will occur. I know liberals loathe accountability, but this site embraces it.--Aschlafly 13:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I will happily take accountability for creating the article. I am not sure what else I am supposed to be accountable for. I mean, the conservative parables page invites vandalism on a scale immensely higher. Looking at its history right now, I see at least a dozen reverts on the previous fifty edits alone. And the deceit page, one of your darlings, has been vandalized... what, a hundred times?
If vandalism was a concern to you, you could have locked the page. You do as much for dozens of other "high-risk" pages here. As for me, I rather think that a single vandalism edit would mean that a full 20% or more of all the pages here would have to be similarly deleted, yes? The only accountability here is for a conservative afraid to let the other side be heard at all on his website, it seems to me.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The only accountability here is for a conservative afraid to let the other side be heard at all on his website - a rather arrogant and insulting observation from Conservapedia's own barrack room lawyer. Bugler 16:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I will of course not deliberately encourage any attack on any page in this site. I do, however, expect and believe that you will hold every entry in equality, especially with regards to treatment. It has been shown that some of your favorite pages have undergone countless vandalism attacks and have not suffered deletion. Thus it would only be reasonable that any page on this site cannot be deleted purely for the fact that vandals enjoy attacking it. --AndrasK 16:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

A better approach. I agree.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Add the following please

Tax Payers Fund Abortion

Planned Parenthood filed financial statements that include 1 billion dollars in earnings. The lives of 3 million innocent children were taken at its facilities. Planned Parenthood does all of this with over $305.3 million dollars a year of your tax money. [1]

It is nearly impossible to track funds the organization receives that may be used against Pro-life candidates. They are forbidden from using any family planning funds it receives from the government to advocate the political victory or defeat of any candidate. That "money is fungible," according to pro-life organizations. (Planned Parenthood's 'Attack Arm' Targets Pro-Life Candidates, June 24, 2002)

Planned Parenthood has received $3.9 billion in federal taxpayer funds since 1987 [2]

All indicators point to more taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood if a Democrat is elected President.

Policies of the Federal Government and the Other States [3]

The federal government pays for abortions only when necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

  • It was the policy in twenty-seven states to fund abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered until the Clinton administration through threats and law suits forced funding for other exceptions in several of the states. (AL, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT)
  • Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest-- several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)
  • Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)
  • Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)
Simply create a new entry like taxpayer-funded abortion, insert your material, and let's build it up with more references. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The abortion page is locked. I will post to that talk page for inclusion.--jp 23:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I suggested posting it to taxpayer-funded abortion.--Aschlafly 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Very good, thanks--jp 23:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
You are a good person. I was meaning to start a new page with this information. I couldn't access my original citations so I hadn't gotten to it yet. I saw it on the home page. God bless. --jp 20:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to let you know as crazy as it sounds, the page has made no.8 on page 1 of Google already (tax payer funded abortion) and (taxpayer funded abortion).
That's amazing! Thanks for the info.--Aschlafly 21:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Article, Faith

I removed some things only because they were underdeveloped. I actually improved the Christianity in the article, I wasn't intending to remove it. And in fact I was getting ready to re-add some of those back in because I thought I could incorporate them better into changes I had just made. Do you mind if I revert and do that? --Ymmotrojam 15:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, sorry, but the version I saw has been expunged of how faith is a Christian concept. In fact, Christianity was not even mentioned, directly or indirectly, on the first page of the entry. The censoring of Christianity from the entry appears to have happened over a two-month period.
Please feel free to edit it, but I would not favor a dilution of how faith is a Christian concept different from the "belief" of other religions.--Aschlafly 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
My main goal with this editing is to show a biblical definition, and that by implication is a Christian definition of faith. And then we can show how that precise biblical or Christian definition differs from the false-faiths of other religions. Sound good? I just think we need to make the definition of faith clear first before we go making the claim that Christianity is the only "right" faith (although I agree with that). --Ymmotrojam 15:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Haeckel and "ethical atheism"


Take a look at this old NY Times article:

March 9, 1907, Saturday

Page 1, 238 words

BERLIN, March 8. -- Emperor William to-day bestowed on Prof. Ernst Haeckel, the celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism, the title of Excellency, in honor of his golden jubilee as a doctor. Conservative 03:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Very ineresting. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Supreme Court Project

Is the Supreme Court Project still active? It looks like it was just forgotten about. --MichaelK 19:48, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia abortion article ranked #4 by Google USA

Andy our abortion article is now ranked #4 by Google USA (see: ) and I do think it is very doable to knock out the #3 Google article from its position as the material is exceedingly weak in my estimation - plus we have knocked out their material from past top Google positions before due to the weakness of their material (they pretend to cover all positions but I believe it is a farce as the conservative position is represented weakly). I think we could have an internationally ranked high article for abortion and gain a higher Google rank for Google USA by doing the following: 1) have the article cover more of the international material like our homosexuality article does 2)tell others about our abortion article 3) challenge to a debate and they have a blog where we could do this 4) challenge others to a debate 5) there are other things we could do as well. I would like our abortion article to rank high across the board at Google for the various countries (Google UK, Google Australia, Google Ireland, etc. etc. ) like our theory of evolution, atheism, and homosexuality articles. Please feel free to contact me about this matter. Conservative 20:22, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow!!!--Aschlafly 21:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


Andy, I am sure you will find interesting this link: User:TomMoore/StolenImages --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama and "Affirmative Action President"

I added the phrase, "a term coined by Michael Savage" as a summary of the history of the term according to CP. Without it (and without following the link) readers may be confused by the term. With the phrase, noting that it's a new term, people will follow the link to learn the meaning of the term. --Jareddr 12:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

We have links so that we don't have to repeat information and, besides, you misstated the history of the term. The term was coined on this site first, and later Michael Savage used it, as clearly explained by Affirmative Action President.--Aschlafly 12:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Misread the entry, thanks for the head's up! --Jareddr 12:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

The context of the quote about being bitter is incorrect. He was not being asked a question about why PA voters weren't supporting his candidacy. Could you provide a source or citation that makes that connection, because it certainly isn't obvious. --Jareddr 12:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Please explain what you think he was being asked about, if not the obvious.--Aschlafly 13:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Since you removed the last edit with expanded information, where can I include that information on the encyclopedic entry on Barack Obama? --Jareddr 13:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
A footnote or a separate entry would be fine, provided it's accurate and not pushing a liberal spin.--Aschlafly 13:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Your opinion?

User:Ymmotrojam/Theory of evolution. What do you think of the way it is organized? :-) --Ymmotrojam 20:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Al Gore and Obama

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Al Gore has just endorsed Barack Obama, despite the fact he said earlier he would not endorse a candidate so he could promote environmentalism. This is especially ludicrous because McCain is the most pro-environmental Republican there is, and it seems like Gore might be shooting himself in the foot. I submit this as a suggestion for the breaking news stream. Link here.

Thank you for entertaining my suggestion. I apologize if this was not a good place to put it, but I am new to Conservapedia and the rules do not outline this procedure. --Countryforchrist 21:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I apologize, I realize I should have posted it on the discussion for the news page (I erroneously believed that the page was edited, I see now it is not). I leave it here struck through for historical purposes. Sorry to bother you. --Countryforchrist 21:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Keyboard shortcuts

Do you know if it is possible for you to add keyboard shortcuts to Conservapedia (such as ctrl-r for recent changes, ctrl-e for edit, ctrl-t for talk)? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance, either way. ZTak 09:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Brilliant idea, I hope the idea is put into place for our site-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't yet know how to do this. Suggestions are welcome. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 08:38, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


I wouldn't say he is following Biblical Christianity, per se, but he does go to church and did convert to Christianity, the sect he was part of was heretical but still fits the defenition of Christianity -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

He also doesn't support same-sex marriage yet he is okay with abortion, if anything he is following some very liberal branch of Christianity, but he still believes Jesus is his Lord, and goes to church, something many Christians don't do -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

There's nothing persuasive (other political expediency) to indicate that Obama is a Christian: no Christian name, no evangelizing, no Christian positions, no conversions or outward signs, no clear understanding, etc. Meanwhile, there's lots of evidence to suggest otherwise: positions contrary to most Christians, far-fetched claims about his religious background, quick departure from his church, etc.
At Conservapedia we don't simply repeat liberal claims as though they are true. The assertion that Obama is a Christian looks like one of those self-serving liberal claims that does not merit repetition.--Aschlafly 17:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I dont think you can throw his name down as a reason to show he is not christian (or not christian enough). In fact, he is Barack Obama Jnr, named after his father, although his father abandoned him, and by keeping his name he is respecting his father which is a christian trait. Just a thought. Also if he didnt have a quickk departure from his church then people would ask why he hasnt left considering his former pastor's comments AdenJ 17:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, you're clueless about Christianity. Learn to capitalize it first and then try to understand it. Also, don't engage in last wordism on my own talk page or your account will be blocked without warning.--Aschlafly 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

At the risk of being accused of last wordism, I thought this was a conversation. I wasnt trying to offend or have the last word. I just didnt think his name was something that needed to be looked into so deeply. AdenJ 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did some reasearch Obama is probably a muslim see this picture recently uploaded at wikipedia soon before they remove it PLEASE upload the picture at -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I don't think wearing customary local clothing is all that significant. But that's for the suggestion.--Aschlafly 07:35, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


While TomMoore has reacted badly, Joaquin Martinez is an admin and he should behave like one, at least as a true admin. Take note. --Tennant 20:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


Hi. As someone who is well versed in mathematics I must say that I find the current state of some of the mathemtical articles here a little interesting. You are I am given to understand creating both and encylopedia and a homeschooling resource with the latter I would like to help. The current state of the articles seem to be a mixture of example, definitions neither of which are helpful. What I was trying to do was make this site more usable, by having a page explainig the topic in general (a definition) and having seperate pages for examples to help with homeschooling. However I feel that this whole area need evaluating if you want to make this a usable resource. DanielB 20:20, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

We'd be happy to have you assist Daniel and look forward to your improvements. Learn together 20:31, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
It just seemed like you were deleting chunks of educational material, Daniel. Your edit to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for example, seemed to make it less educational.--Aschlafly 21:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
It now has the fundamental theorem of calculus actually stated as an equation. DanielB 22:09, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Also it is important to remember more information is not nessarily better information. DanielB 22:13, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I have some suggestions, particularly about this and the mathematical series article. For 90/10 reasons, I won't say anything further here. Feel free to discuss on my user page. (Not the talk page, the user page. SamHB 22:28, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Image upload

Excuse me, may you please upload the rating symbols found here:[7]? I was thinking about putting them in the ESRB article. Thank you in advance. WilliamH 19:16, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, there's a vandal called "Unrealious" around. Thank you for your attention. WilliamH 19:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks on both points, William. Images have been uploaded per your request.--Aschlafly 10:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
No, thanks to you. The article looks much better now. WilliamH 18:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)


No mistake on this? Jinxmchue 12:39, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Just checked the logs. Wow! I never sought this, but I gratefully accept it. Thank you! Jinxmchue 12:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Was Down

What happened? the site was down for over 5 hours! NormanS 06:17, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It's up now. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Hi Aschlafly

I recently made some purely factual edits to Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia, correcting some mistakes. I noticed that you reversed those changes. Since I am new to editing here I wonder if you could explain what the problem with those edits was? Daphnea 09:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I also had another edit undone by User:Bugler who said that "all edits to that article should be discussed with you as a matter of courtesy". The edit that I changed contained a claim that could not be verified, contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. I would be grateful if you could approve that edit so that I can move on to other things. Daphnea 10:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
What's the edit? I'll try to take a look myself but it is a good idea to discuss first if there is any doubt.--Aschlafly 23:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Hi Andrew. Thanks for replying. The edits in question are the last three that I made to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. They are in the last ten edits so you should have no problem finding them. As for "if there is any doubt" the edits are simple fixes to factual errors. One is a fix to a place where we say Wikipedia says something and it doesn't. I don't think this was any kind of deliberate falsification, just that Wikipedia probably used to say it and now it doesn't. However we need to be sure that we are accurate and up to date if we are to keep credibility. The second is a problem of verification. The article claimed that Barack Obama was given a Harvard post on the basis of affirmative action. Unfortunately the reference given doesn't back that up - it says that there was affirmative action by Harvard, but not that Obama benefitted from it. Obviously there may be other references out there that make it clear he was a beneficiary of affirmative action, but to put in something that is not verifiable is against the Conservapedia Commandments. The third edit is a reference to the inclusion of the biblical creation story in Wikipedia "Creation Myths" article. Since that article is a list of creation stories from many cultures wouldn't we be more upset of the biblical version wasn't included? Daphnea 10:35, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Watchlist seems to be a bit broken

Not sure if this is right, and I apologise if this isn't the right place to post it, but something odd seems to have happened to the Watchlist special page. Before, changed paged since last read would appear bold. Now they appear bold according to... well, I'm not sure - seems random. Seems to have been like this since some sort of upgrade occurred a few weeks ago. FYI. Ajkgordon 10:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

We did upgrade, but watchlist seems to work fine for me.--Aschlafly 23:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Growing Conservapedia

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I'm hesitant to go into much detail here on a semi public page, but I have some concrete ideas on growing Conservapedia and non-profit development is my main area of expertise, having taken a lead role in several non-profit orgs. and schools. I'm not soliciting and would like to volunteer some concrete ideas, as will be clear if I post more about it.

If you could please be so kind as to email me (email on my user account) or let me know if I should go into more info on this page, I'd look forward to sharing some thoughts. Off hand I believe that you can capitalize somewhat from this weekend’s article in which teachers in Scottland blame Wikipedia for lower grades among students - . You can capitalize even more by rallying conservatives to the extent of the tactics used by the other side to stifle academic debate and discussion and the vital role that Conservapedia can play in the battle for open discourse and presentation of all views that is so vital for the future.--Irpw 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

You can post ideas here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, here are some ideas.
A. National Awareness Campaign - As a first step I’d suggest starting a national awareness campaign by simply asking conservative-friendly TV, radio (Rush, Beck, etc.) and internet to promote discussion of the tactics used by the left and wikipedia to obtain a stranglehold on the minds of the future, the extent and the militancy of their tactics and the need for Conservapedia as the only viable solution to preserve intellectual honesty. The examples of their outrageous behavior, militancy, underhanded tactics are plenty and they should be highlighted (if we’re to stop them). There should be an awareness campaign launched among all conservative media, and this will take off.
Crucial to the effectiveness of the awareness campaign’s effectiveness would be key points and facts against evolutionary theory and highlighting the outrageous tactics of its proponents.
B. Garner support - For this to happen I also believe that it’s crucial that while Conservapedia remain a private endeavor, a separate non-profit be set up to advocate and come up with educational honesty, a “Friends of” type of foundation for the encyclopedia (just as many private hospitals have a supportive foundation for their non-profit work). The non-profit can a) help promote conservapedia’s scholarly essays, courses and writings, b) pay for scholars to compile info with the foundation retaining the rights to that info but allowing conservapedia to use it c) help proliferate awareness of the need for factual and non-biased scientific sources, such as CP. Setting up such a foundation is absolutely crucial as the bulk of support will probably come from small but dedicated donors at the beginning and will allow for mass mailing, etc., to raise awareness and garner support at the same time.
Organizing a nucleus of support should be easy if the right people/venues are targeted (media, as mentioned above).
I also agree with Watchman’s suggestion that the name of the encyclopedia be changed to something that it really stands for, like, com or even something bland but academic like the Intellectually Honest Online Encyclopedia.
On my end, I’ll be writing a column in a minor conservative outlet (that will then be posted to conservative forums, blogs, etc.) on the need for CP. I recently featured two columns, one on proofs of the existence of a Divine creator and the other challenging the premises of evolutionists and was met with such outrageous/laughable opposition (phone calls, googlestalking, IP spoofing, etc.) that I see how important it is to stand up now. I believe there are many examples of the behavior of militants on the other side that can rally support and awareness of the need for a site like this one.
Lastly….congratulations on having founded an excellent site that is finally dedicated to the truth as opposed to the 1984 version of it espoused by the leftists (that one of the posters above takes issue with you pointing out wikipedia's bias and how they portray creationism as a "myth" is very telling). - Irpw

Lenski:the next step

Andy, firstly I'd like to repeat what I said on the dialog talk page: that you deserve the thanks and admiration of all here for your stand on this issue. The question is, now that Professor Lenski has exposed himself, is how can your achievement be built upon: where do we go from here?

One possible route would be to challenge Lenski via the National Academy of Sciences, with a formal letter protesting his attitude to the President of the NAS, Ralph J. Cicerone. I don't for a minute think that he would respond positively - despite having trained to doctoral level in the useful discipline of electrical engineering, he now bills himself as a specialist in 'climate change' (another pseudo-scince beloved of the liberals) - but it would provide further evidence of the closed society that is the public-funded scientific 'establishment'.

Another option, to raise public awareness of the issue, might be for Conservapedians to peacefully protest at public lectures that Professor Lenski might deliver. This may be an easy one for me to suggest, with an ocean between us, but it would gain publicity for CP and an opportunity to debunk - or at the very least present credible opposition to - the Darwinist theorists.

I hope these ideas may find favour, and I feel that they complement the good points made by Irpw above (though I disagree about a name change - Conservapedia is a strong 'brand' that doesn't need changing).

Thanks, Bugler 08:54, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, thanks for your comments and suggestions, and your efforts. Lenski's study was federally funded at a public university. I think a refusal to make the data publicly available is inconsistent with the use of federal monies. I also think the astoundingly short period between paper submission and paper acceptance is an issue. Stay tuned.--Aschlafly 17:18, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
That's the problem with the politicization of science, in fact it's the same problem as Wikipedia. Supposedly scientists search for the objective truth, and supposedly Wikipedia is neutral when there are controversies. Actually, the institution of science has always taken sides, whenever there was anything really important at stake.
We like to applaud science's successes, claiming a new discovery nearly every week (!) but paradigm-shaking new theories are frequently resisted bitterly and relentlessly. Money, power, knowledge - seems everyone wants as much as they can and even a monopoly whenever possible. Scientists aren't any better than anyone else, in terms of selfishness, ego, pride, greed, envy, and so on.
When there were hundreds of billions of dollars at stake (per year!!) with the global warming treaty, that obscure PhD. at UMass Amherst refused to share his data and methods. He wanted be sure that no one in the US could verify (or fail to verify) his results. It took a couple of Canadians to prove that his Hockey Stick Graph was a fraud. (If Gore had been president, imagine what would have happened to our economy if he got Congress to ratify the Kyoto Protocol - you think gas prices are high now?) --Ed Poor Talk 18:59, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Is there any chance for legal action? DrSandstone 17:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I second Dr. Sandstone. I am not a lawyer, but would this be covered under the FOI act? It was funded by the government--Goodman 18:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Connection Problems

Dear sir, I am having trouble connecting to this site, and it appears you are in charge. I cannot access the site except for morning and late at night, at other times I just get a connection timeout. I also find that I cannot edit for about an hour before I stop connecting to the site and an hour after I can connect at night (it says only those who are administrators or editors can edit, but I thought I was an editor, is there a problem?). I live in Australia and that could be contributing to the problem, but otherwise I'm not sure. Is there any way this problem can be fixed, because it is affecting me and possibly other editors from using and improving this site. NormanS 08:41, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The site was down Monday and Wednesday nights during some of the overnight hours (New York time), which was unusual and the issues have been addressed. Ordinarily there is access to the site during those overnight hours (New York time), and proven contributors also have editing authority, which you can obtain after establishing a track record of substantive edits.
You can edit now and I look forward to learning from your contributions. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, I'm off to bed for now but I'll be contributing some more on the weekend. God bless NormanS 09:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Unable to edit

Hi Andrew

I was also unable to edit for much of yesterday afternoon, from about 1.30pm Eastern time. I could see the recent changes page and as far as I could tell only Administrators were allowed to edit. I sent emails to a few Admins but nobody replied. Was this a normal part of the 'overnight' shutdown? Daphnea 09:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure about that. Editing is almost never suspended during the day. Please let me know if you observe difficulties again.

Daphnea, I noticed the same problem and wrote to an admin about it. No response. --IlTrovatore 13:38, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, this is the first I'm hearing about it. I'll check the logs for yesterday.--Aschlafly 19:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Good ideas on growing conservapedia

Hi Andrew

It's now 48 hours since I tried to make a completely factual edit to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, and I was told that all edits to that article need to be discussed with you in advance. In that time you said "you would look at it" 24 hours ago. I've heard nothing. I understand you are a busy man, as are we all.

If you didn't insist on vetting edits before they are made then everybody would be able to make more edits and Conservapedia would grow much faster. Can I suggest you simply visit any pages you are interested in every few days and edit anything you disagree with, passing on any comments to the editors? Daphnea 11:03, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Daphnea, why are you using my header to get his attention? From what I see the Obama thing has been debated ad infinitum and Andy's right, Harvard did have a strong affirmative action policy and Obama was far less accomplished than other members of the same board, hence 1 + 1 = 2. Also, you edited out that wiki calls creationism a myth and then try to twist the point. It's not about the origins in cultures page and you know that. They refer to it as a myth on discussions of evo vs creationism. If you want to poke holes at least do so with intellectual honesty. I'm sorry for taking the liberty to write this, especially as I'm new. And my views don't represent anyone other than my own. I wasn't going to comment on your disingenuous twisting but your use of my thread line to get his attention seems to warrant a response. It could be that others have a different viewpoint and I certainly won't speak for Mr. Schlafly. --Irpw 11:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Can we take this somewhere else? I'm sure Mr Schlafly's talk page gets enough postings without other people holding debates here. Daphnea 11:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Daphnea, I just reviewed your latest edit to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia and, needless to say, your complete deletion of an entire point was unjustified and unacceptable. Please don't waste our time with further edits like that. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)



I was wondering if you could take a look at this petition that, at the moment I am writing this, has 15 signatures. We were hoping that if these rules were made into effect, the amount of censorship and the number of idealogical bans would greatly decrease. If there are parts of the petition that you do not agree with, could you please raise your concerns at the talk page so we might be able reach a compromise?

Thank you for your time,

FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 11:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

It has been three days and I can't help but feel as if I'm being ignored. I ask again, could you please address the contents of the petition? FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 12:59, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't mind posting here everyday until you respond =) FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 15:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
17+ people are waiting, but you just go ahead and take your time. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 11:46, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
This is getting a little ridiculous. If you are not going to address the petition, why don't you say so? I am not asking for very much here. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 17:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

(deleted what I concluded was someone's pathetic, deceitful attempt at self-amusement)--Aschlafly 15:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)


The conservapedia article over at wikipedia was recently promoted to good status or GA. The GA critera include: well written, well sourced, neutral, stable and pictures where appropriate. Does conservapedia have such a system yet that reviews article quality? Would it be worth starting something perhaps? Dotherightthing 01:41, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

It speaks volumes about wikipedia that such a system is neccessary, and why we don't have that here. Our articles have the qualities listed (although from a conservative rather than 'npov' standpoint), and are concise and educational to boot. However, I doubt whether the wp article on Conservapedia matches up to these high standards; more likely it is riven through with Liberal deceit. Bugler 06:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia's growing bias -- this time conferring an award on itself for its own falsehood -- is simply digging itself a bigger grave. See the new point #1 in Bias in Wikipedia, as inspired by this silly "good status" self-award at Wikpedia.--Aschlafly 15:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
I almost wish you had not mentioned this. I had to visit that den of lies to see it for myself. Incredible. SO much for Wikipeidia's NPOV!--Hurst 15:31, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I didn't want to bring bad news, I thought Aschlafly would have been intersted to know. Its certainly is revealing though. Dotherightthing 18:20, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Farewell to Conservapedia

I thought I would say goodbye. The repeated censorship of facts for petty ideological reasons; the refusal to allow any edit that doesn't conform to your personal viewpoint; the repeated breaking of rules by those in charge (even though they made the rules); the removal of comments that express any kind of dissenting view (even Conservative dissenting views) and the blocking of those who are 'disobedient' have convinced me that Conservapedia is not an enterprise I want to support.

The one thing that puzzles me is this. Since you clearly want this website to only express viewpoints that you agree with, why did you make it a wiki? Wouldn't it have been much easier to start your own blog? The ten or so people who actually agree with the way you are running things could easily have been invited to contribute to the blog. Daphnea 11:03, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Daphnea, you're the one who treated this site like a blog, with your constant talk, talk, talk, rather than substantive encyclopedic edits. Then you couldn't resist making a Parthian Shot above like the liberals before you.
Do yourself a favor, please: open your mind and try to score higher on the open-minded test: Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT)


Andy, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the issues I raised on the Homeschooling talk page, and whether you think said issues would be a fruitful area for investigation. If you have the time to take a look, any feedback you care to offer would be appreciated. --Benp 12:35, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your insightful comments, to which I've responded there.--Aschlafly 20:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)


Mr. Schlafly, I recently created a page on Acinetobacter in an attempt to start a microbiology category on Conservapedia. I was hoping that you could assist me by uploading a few pictures from the CDC's Public Health Image Library, which to my knowledge is all under the Fair-Use policy. Currently, I just need image number 9330--I can't provide a link because I'm on a library computer and it won't allow me to view the target. You can find the PHIL here. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for your contributions. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.--Aschlafly 19:49, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Important Information

I have important first hand insight relating to a current issue on Conservapedia. After considerable thought and prayer I would like to share this with you privately. If you would be receptive to this please contact me on my e-mail address associated with this account. If not I will take no offense but will be able to move on with a clear conscience. Thank you. KDanbyUK 15:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

This is your only edit here in four days, so I'm not overwhelmed. Let's revisit after you've had a few hundred substantive contributions. Thanks much and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:10, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
User:KDanbyUK has been blocked for vandalism. So much for 'considerable thought and prayer'. Bugler 08:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Block rights?

Any chance I could have blocking rights? I've had to revert two vandal sprees today already while the vandals were still at it. It's quite frustrating to edit war for stretches of time while waiting for somebody else to notice the spree. --KevinM 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I reviewed your edits, some of which are a good start. Blocking privileges are earned and you're not quite there yet, but you're making progress. Thanks for your reversions, and Godspeed. Let's revisit after a few hundred edits, or some particularly good ones.--Aschlafly 20:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how the power to block vandals is connected to the quality or quantity of my edits. And I would argue that quantity and quality would improve if I could simply block vandals instead of wasting precious time reverting until somebody with these rights shows up. --KevinM 20:17, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
We're a meritocracy, and that's worked well so far. Additional powers are available to all, including yourself, upon demonstration of merit. Your reversions have been good but there is also room for improvement in some of your edits. We're a patient bunch.--Aschlafly 20:23, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I see. Can I at least have edit rights, then? My free time is limited, but I occasionally have open spots during the night, so this would help with improving my track record, I believe. --KevinM 20:29, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Kevin, your new question is similar and the answer is the same. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Um, LarryFarma got edit rights after making only two talk page posts, if I see this correctly. To date, he hasn't made a single mainspace edit. I made more than 140 edits (most of which were non-talk, and most of the talk edits were constructive), reverted four vandal waves, started a few articles, removed copyrighted passages from articles... so unless his discussion posts have more merit than my encyclopedia contributions, I think I'm not asking for too much here. --KevinM 20:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Kevin, you're starting to waste my time. Meritorious contributions are not judged by quantity, and last wordism doesn't count for anything here either. Logic and faith have a premium here. Please don't compel me respond again to this. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
*opens mouth* ... *closes it again* it. --KevinM 20:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Peer reviewing

You made a statement on the main page that you peer reviewed some papers. You seemed to have missed the several comments asking what you peer reviewed, and how long it took. I'm hoping that you will read this and respond to the questions posed to you on the main page. Thank you for your time. Rellik 21:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

You didn't provide a link and I couldn't find what you're referencing. Sorry. But a technical paper having the sweeping claims of Lenski's paper should ordinarily require many weeks of time to complete a meaningful, thorough review. I've seen papers having more limited claims to take far longer to do a thorough peer review.--Aschlafly 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't meant to taunt you, I was just asking questions - I didn't mean any offence at all, apologies if it appeared that way. Anyway, my question still stands (as is the same as Rellik's above) - what were the papers you referenced here? (I provided the link because you said you couldn't find it) If you don't want to answer, that's fine, just let me know =) Thanks! Ger 09:08, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I did a survey of peer review time periods in the PNAS journal itself, as can you. It's publicly available. I've published articles myself in peer-reviewed publications, dating back to my days as an engineer, and I've helped other peer reviewed publications. I've served as a blind peer reviewer also over the years.--Aschlafly 18:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Cool stuff, where can I find the peer review time periods information (like you say, I can do a survey too!). Much thanks. Ger 12:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Look at the first page of PNAS articles. I posted my results in Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog, which has probably since been archived.--Aschlafly 13:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal box

Would it be possible to direct you to the liberal box seen here. As you can see the main title "Liberal characteristics and traits" links to the liberal article but there is also a link to liberal article within the box. It might be an idea to remove the wikilink on the main title of the box. It seems neater not to link to the same article twice. I tried removing the wikilink but I couldn't. Could you help me if you don't object. Thank you. Dotherightthing 22:00, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, don't have time now. By the way, please request a change of your name to your first name and last initial. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, ok. I don't know where to go to get a name change, I will go and look. Thank you. Dotherightthing 22:10, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Just post your first name and last initial here, and I can change it for you. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:23, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
OK it would be "Ben E". Dotherightthing 22:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Done. Thanks, and welcome!--Aschlafly 23:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
He he, I like it. :-) BenE 23:15, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

A Request

Hey I recently created a page Destiny church can you please change the name to Destiny Church. I don't know how to change the name user:DamianJohn

Done!--Aschlafly 18:48, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Missed responses

It seems that you may have missed the responses of EileenT and myself on Talk:Main Page. --DenningMR 23:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

My comments on the Barack Obama talk page

I've posted some comments here that I was hoping you could weigh in on. Specifically, I've found an inaccuracy as to Barack Obama Sr.'s heritage that should be corrected. Thanks for your input! --Ampersand 14:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist

Please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist. Conservative 17:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not asking for disclosure of anything personal. I am asking for Lenski to release his taxpayer-funded data.--Aschlafly 18:18, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I understand that you may consider his beliefs personal, but it could not hurt to ask. Indeed, it may help. If it turns out Lenski is an atheist, it may explain the results of his experiment. Like many atheists, he has so much invested in his belief in evolution, that he rigged his experiment to (allegedly) prove that it is true.--Hurst 16:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Deleted article


I have asked Ed Poor about this but I havn't had a respose, I am slightly obsessive compulsive so I won't sleep tonight unless it is fixed. Is it possible to restore the derivative article? This is the most important ariticle in the maths cat, bar the integration article.

Cheers, DanielB 09:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Do you know why was it deleted?--Aschlafly 09:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
According to the summary because it was difficult to read. DanielB 09:50, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
I restored it, but note that the deletion comment also said it was possibly inaccurate. Can you double-check its accuracy? Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Okay thanks. DanielB 10:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Its all good. DanielB 10:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Inquiry about an article


as a sysop, I would be grateful if you could respond to an inquiry I have posted at Talk:World of Warcraft. In short, I wish to rewrite the article to be shorter and more coherent. Thank you. JamzJohnson 23:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll post here again, as it seems that you may have overlooked this request during your busy schedule. JamzJohnson 21:04, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Can you contact me privately?

I have a question that I don't want to be seen publicly about some edits. If so, use my user email address. Thanks. Jinxmchue 20:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Go ahead and fix edits that you think are unjustified. Per your request, I just tried to send you email, but received this effor message: "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."
By the way, thanks for your edits, and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:04, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Oops. Sorry about that with the email. Well, I guess I'll just outright say it. I'm a bit suspect about some of the math articles, particularly the newer ones created recently. Know anyone who can double-check these? My last math course was Calculus in my junior year of high school, so I'm a bit out of the loop on it. Jinxmchue 12:59, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal et al

Hi Aschlafly, I recently discovered you are the owner of Conservapedia and I would just like to say that I have enjoyed reading the liberal articles. It is rare to find information about liberal thought and ideals in such a concise format. I hope to be able to add to these pages and perhaps, if you have time, you could look at an edit I made on the liberal gullibility entry. Thanks. JJacob 22:41, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your insight edit to liberal gullibility. Hope you can edit more on this site!--Aschlafly 21:58, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey thanks for the vote of confidence Aschlafly!!! I made a couple to Liberal logic also. I will continue to improve my entries! JJacob 22:01, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

(rant on another topic deleted - don't rant on someone else's talk page on this site)

Profile of the type of people who visit conservapedia

I saw a website that collects statistics on the types of people who visit various websites.

Here is an analysis of Conservapedia:

Hope you found it interesting. Conservative 00:36, 7 July 2008 (EDT)


Hi Andy, I thought of a great Liberal hypocrisy! the fact that liberals always and continually complain the George W Bush used to drink and (I think once used cocaine) but dont seem to bat an eyelid when Obama admits to trying drugs frequently and drinking. I wanted to add it to the page but it is locked. I will be offline for awhile so, if you or another sysop thinks this is a good idea perhaps someone could add it? Let me know what you think. thanks! JJacob 19:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Great point, and I've unlocked the page for you to edit as you think best. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Done! However feel free to change position etc if you dont like it. I would grab a cite however my computer is really playing up. JJacob 21:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)


Conservapedia isn't allowing people to create accounts -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, from what I understand, CP shuts off account creation at times to stem vandalism. --transResident Transfanform! 23:41, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Registration has been off temporarily for the past few days, and we regret any inconvenience.--Aschlafly 10:45, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

A Request


I'm working on a new article, Religious rights of teachers. While I'm trying to make sure the article is well-researched and supported by examples, I'm not a legal expert. If you have the free time, would it be possible for you to take a look and perhaps comment on the legalities involved in the various cases cited? Thanks for any help you can offer. --Benp 19:43, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

An idea regarding new editor registration

Andy, I had an idea regarding new editor registration.

As part of the registration for a new user, the new user would have to create 3 paragraphs of material during the sign up process. The new user's username would not show up as a new user on the recent changes editing log until the registration process was complete. Since liberal vandals do not want to help build a conservative encyclopedia this would weed out the undesirables. The three paragraphs of material would be reviewed before the person became a new user. Of course, the faster the 3 paragraphs of material was reviewed and the person became an editor the better. Conservative 22:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It would be easy to tell the vandals from the serious users in 3 paragraphs. Most of those vandals would have trouble with 3 sentances, let alone 3 paragraphs! JJacob 22:57, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It sounds like a good idea, but some people just fix punctuation and spelling, these people would not be interested in joining Conservapedia, but are also important to Conservapedia. We want as many users as we can get. Besides I think a majority of potential users would not like joining if it took so long a process. Also Schlafly will have to look at dozen's of user's sign up assignments daily. This idea would stunt growth by a lot. -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

My Name

Hello, I just created my account and wanted to make sure my name was acceptable. I didn't go with my First Name and last initial (TerryK) because I saw a former user had a very similar name. If my final choice is not acceptable, I would be happy to change it. Thank you very much for your time. TKaldor 23:19, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It's fine. Welcome!--Aschlafly 23:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Question about my block

You recently blocked me for a day, and your block note also contained this: "changing a great deal of work by another editor apparently without discussing it first"

Since I'm not fully clear which article this is referring to (I improved quite a few articles before your two blocks), I'd like to know if you could tell me which article you meant and if you want me to self-revert or explain anything. I just want closure. Thanks! --KevinM 14:37, 9 July 2008 (EDT)


Hi Andy, I created a new page on the Open-Carry Movement. Have you heard of it before? It is a brief entry so far but, as I hear you know your legal business, perhaps you could add something on the legality of it? I know very little about US gun laws in regards to concealed weapons etc. Thanks!!! JJacob 20:16, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Commandments

Hey I noticed that the Conservapedia:Commandments, do not require someone writes an article in English. Is this wiki going to be expanded into Spanish or some other foreign language in the future? -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (EDT)


I did a big expansion of Kosher but need to upload a picture which shows the major kosher symbols can you give me upload rights -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (EDT)


Greetings ASchlafly, this user has requested to be unblocked. Would you be willing to unblock him under certain conditions? I would be willing to monitor him. HenryS 00:29, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

HenryS, my guess (and it is only a guess) is that main certain condition will be that a certain very, very hot place will freeze over before AmesG will edit Conservapedia again.  :) Of course, I certainly could be mistaken. :) Conservative 14:50, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Group change

Hi Andy, looking at recent changes I see my group membership changed. I am unsure what this means? Thanks, JJacob 04:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

On behalf of Mr Schlafly - JJacob, your membership of the "edit" group allows you to edit Conservapedia even when the site is locked for most users. It is recognition of your good work to date and is awarded to editors of good standing. Well done! Further good work may be rewarded with image upload and vandal blocking rights. BrianCo 12:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thats great and unexpected. Thanks for the big vote in confidence and I assure you I'll keep my editing to the quality standard that is expected. God bless. JJacob 17:15, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

New Page

Hi Andy, I have created (though not yet posted) a new page called Liberal Obsession. When you are next online can you let me know and I'll post it so you can be the first to say Yay or Nay. Thanks, JJacob 18:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Couldn't find it quickly. Could you provide a link (and adopt the approach of providing such links in the future by "wikifying" your comments)? Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I hadnt posted it. Its up now. Liberal Obsession JJacob 20:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Looks great.--Aschlafly 22:22, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Andy, it has already got some attention! It was just an observation that proved startlingly correct!! God bless. JJacob 22:52, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

A question...

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question that I would be very interested to hear your answer to.

My grandparents all took part in World War II. Both grandmothers were riveters--they helped build bombers. My maternal grandfather helped liberate China as part of the U.S. Army, and lost his leg in the service. My paternal grandfather fought in Italy, losing the use of one eye.

All four of them were avowed liberals, to their dying days. How can you reconcile the service they rendered to their country with all the things you say on this website? I hope you will give me an honest answer, rather than removing this comment/blocking this account.

Thank you.KJackson 20:51, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying they opposed classroom prayer, and supported taxpayer-funded abortion and same-sex marriage? That's what it means to be liberal today. I doubt your grandparents really supported these positions of today's liberals. If they did, then I'd respond that not even heroes are always right.--Aschlafly 22:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

New User

Hello Mr. Schlafly, I am a new user to your site. I tried to create a page on the card game Magic: the gathering as it has a large potentially negative influence on teenagers, and information about it should be available. Unfortunately I was unable to create the page. I have put it into my user page. Can you help me? --WPalmer 22:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the ":" may cause problems. Try a title without a colon.--Aschlafly 22:26, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I transferred the article for you, WPalmer. Godspeed! Martin 22:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly:

Hi, I don't know if you remember me, but I left your site (despite my sysop nomination) after becoming frustrated that you began to doubt my 34/35 exam score since I had a liberal teacher, and you removed all my editing, image, and blocking privileges. I would just like to inform you that I received my AP scores today, and earned a 5 in AP US Government. I also earned a 5 in US History and World History, as well as a 4 in Comparative Government and European History.

I am sorry you doubted the veracity of my test due to the politics of my teacher. Perhaps I just had liberal scorers who detected the liberal bias from my liberal teacher, and decided to boost my grade. Or perhaps I am an exceptional student who nevertheless decided to attend public schools (where teachers happen to have political beliefs), and can learn to sort my teachers' views from the facts presented.

Also, I would sincerely like to thank you for the valuable Wiki experience your site provided me. I am now an administrator at one of Wikipedia's sister projects. Although I did not rise far up the ranks here as I had hoped, I did learn the ropes. Thanks for that. I wish Conservapedia the best of luck in the future, and hope this resource grows to become just as big as Wikipedia. They could use some competition :)


Greg 14:11, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

AP scores were available over two weeks ago, so I find it dubious that you "received [your] AP scores today." Also, it is extremely rare for the same person to take those four AP exams in the same year. I found your 34/35 score doubtful by comparing the answers you claimed to score correctly (after other correct answers were posted) to the easy one you missed. We're not easily fooled here by liberals.--Aschlafly 23:34, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
AP scores were available two weeks ago if you called in and paid a fee. I still haven't received mine. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 23:54, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
The above user is correct. I have in fact not received mine either, I called my school to find out. I took US Gov, Comparative Gov, and European History this year, and the others last year. This year, I also took English Literature, Macroeconomics, Calculus AB, and Spanish. Last year, I also took English Language and Microeconomics. I passed all of these. Perhaps I misread the question in question. Greg 11:46, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
"GregLarson", don't post on my talk page again. Your name is likely fake (after your prior, unacceptable user name was blocked), and your claims are unlikely. You "passed all of" your AP exams???? No one who took so many AP exams as you claim would likely make the mistake of discussing them in terms of "passing" or "failing". By now you should realize that we don't permit posting falsehoods here. One more and you'll be blocked. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:19, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Just FYI, "passing" for AP tests is defined as having a score of 3 or above. --Humble 14:17, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Please, what is AP? Do it stand for something at school or it is type of examination? Tineke
It's an advanced college placement exam. See Advanced Placement. -Foxtrot 15:35, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Night Edits?

What are the start and end times for "night" edits? I was on the site around 8-8:30 A.M. this morning and was unable to make edits to any of the site. I thought that seemed a little bit late in the morning for "night" edits to still be turned on. Is that setting automatic, or does it have to be manually turned on and off? On a related note, is it possible to post night edit information so all users are aware of the times? Thanks! --Jareddr 09:33, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Taken from User_talk:Karajou#Night_time:
Night time is whenever Andy decides to shutdown the site for the evening. There have been other connectivity issues that have been causing some difficulty in editing, but those are temporary. Hope this helps. Learn together 01:12, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Nate 13:35, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
So is "night time" over whenever Andy gets back to his computer to turn it off? The questions I have above still remain. --Jareddr 13:40, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
It can also become active to help cut-down and revert vandalism. Nate 13:49, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I understand its usefulness. I just think users and editors here would be better served by a set schedule, even if it means slightly earlier at night and later in the morning. --Jareddr 13:51, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Still waiting from a definitive answer from Aschlafly. --Jareddr 16:59, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

There was a regular time for turning on and off night editing, prior to the recent upgrade to the newer version of the software. Since the upgrade, we've been experimenting and no fixed schedule has yet been established. We hope to be back to a regular schedule in the near future, but we are also considering different approaches. We have promoted people more quickly to night editing privileges, so they are not affected. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for the response. I thought it seemed more standard at one point, but thought that perhaps it just seemed that way as opposed to the reality. Looking forward to a more regular schedule, just so I have an idea of when I should come to the computer in the morning to begin editing. --Jareddr 19:13, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Phyllis Aschlafly

Dear Mr. Aschlafly:

Just from curiosity, are you in any relation by chance to Phyllis Aschlafly, the Conservative author and founder of Eagle --CTrooper 18:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

In addition CTrooper, his surname is not Aschlafly, it is just Schlafly. The "a" comes from his Christian name, "Andrew". Wikipedia has a short, albeit incredibly biased article about him. --Peterted 19:24, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Hold on to your socks...that's his Mother! What a coincidence, huh?! --Jareddr 18:36, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr, again with what I perceive as your low-brow sarcasm. JJacob 18:43, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I resent the classification of my sarcasm as low-brow. I prefer high-minded. Or at least as middle-ground as the sarcasm of the initial question.--Jareddr 18:54, 16 July 2008 (EDT)


I read over some of your lectures on U.S. history and I must say that they are not strong. Leaving aside their political slant (i.e. all Democrats are presented as dumb or dishonest), they are not well-organized, offer no context for events, give only the most cursory explanations of things, and have many errors. The only reason I am able to understand them is that I already know the material. Consider this example:

"Andrew Johnson, the Vice President, then became president, only the second succession of presidential power in our history (the first was Tyler becoming president after Harrison’s death). Congress was then controlled by “Radical Republicans” who wanted to impose harsh conditions on the South both to protect African-Americans and to punish the South for the War. Johnson, a Democrat from Tennessee, spent the next three years fighting the Radical Republicans, who eventually impeached him (but fell one vote short of removing him from office)."

This does not make clear who the Radicals were (small group of Northerners driven largely by their moral opposition to slavery), nor why they wanted to punish the South (angry over the war, desirous to make sure nothing like it every happened again, wanted to make the Republican party strong by adding black voters to Republican rolls). It doesn't explain why Johnson felt the way he did (poor, conservative white Southerner who disliked change and disliked black people even more) It also doesn't explain why a Democrat would be serving as a Republican's vice-president (shrewd move by Lincoln to strengthen voter support for his party). All of these are rather important issues.

On top of that are the errors. Johnson was not the second VP to succeed to the presidency, we was third (Tyler replaced Harrison, Fillmore replaced Taylor). Further, the Radicals did not control Congress when Johnson took office. They were always in the minority, and they did not gain "control" until after Johnson mishandled things and drove the moderates into an alliance with the Radicals in 1866.

This is just one paragraph; I could easily give most of the others similar treatment. I would suggest the lectures be taken offline until they can be rewritten, so as to make sure no students rely on them. --JBonham 17:54, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

"Jbonham", you obviously know nothing about American history. Leave it to the experts, OK? Fyezall 17:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Jbonham, you use a meaningless correction (third rather than second) as a starting point for a ton of liberal propaganda. No thanks.--Aschlafly 20:51, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Reading this over, I must say that I fail to see how either of these assertions are true. How does this indicate that the author "know[s] nothing about American history," Fyezall? And exactly where is this ton of liberal propaganda, ASchlafly? Or is anyone who points out mistakes on this site a liberal, no matter how demonstrably correct they are?--TJones 12:09, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and I will also add that the first error--about the presidents--is relatively trivial. The second, however, is quite significant, and speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of how Reconstruction unfolded.--TJones 12:12, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
The point is that the accounts are almost completely correct and it is a liberal strategy to point out small minor differences in an attempt to push their point of view. You aren't foolinganyone here. If you want to make suggestions, fine, but make sure they are well referenced and not POV pushing.--DamianJohn 12:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
You mean unlike the lectures themselves? --AKjeldsen 12:31, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Speaking in generalities is an old trick. Why don't you find some specific examples where citations were needed and not there. Until you post such specific examples here I think it is plain you are just POV pushing.--DamianJohn 12:44, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Asking for specific examples when the problem is with the material as a whole is an equally old trick. Personally, I would expect a teaching resource like these lectures to be extensively annotated, or at the very least include a bibliography. However, I know they're not going to change, so I guess there's little point in debating them any further. --AKjeldsen 12:55, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, DamianJohn, the accounts are largely incorrect. I just read them, and the lectures contain significant errors of fact, and also serious omissions. And perhaps you did not read the post--there were lots of "specific examples" where things are problematic. If you would like a citation, then I suggest "Reconstruction" by Eric Foner, the finest work available on the subject.--TJones 4:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, what do you mean about "POV pushing"? What POV is being pushed? How is clarifying the mechanics of Reconstruction a POV? I wasn't aware that this was a conservative/liberal issue.--TJones 4:22, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Call for Help about "Call for Help!"

Andy, I'm trying to post the following on the talk page of KAL 007 but without success. Can you do it for me? Thanks! Bert

Call For Help!

I want to put photos throughout the article on KAL 007 but don't know how (I have tried to no avail) These photos are a good addition and are of of the persons and ships, interceptor plane, etc. involved and will really enhance the article. Would some of you try your hand at it? The urls for the photos are:

In the Story [8] : The Stalk, the Shootdown, the Escape, the Rescue, "KAL 007, the U.S. 7th Fleet and the Great Russian Ruse", The Photo Essay

In the Documents [9] are a number of very good photos

In the Passenger listing and stories, there are these photos [10] of Noelle Anne Grenfell (on the left) and Stacy Marie Grenfell (on the right), the two little girls that Senator Helms met at Anchorage Airport and spoke so often about.

Thanks!Bert Schlossberg 12:45, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Bert, Mr.Schlafly gave you Upload rights so you can do it yourself. On the left-hand side is a box labelled "edit console", the sixth entry in the list is "upload file". You have to save the images you would like to upload on your own PC and then use the browse button on the upload box to locate them. Displaying them on the article page is easy. Look at the code for articles that feature images for examples of how to include them if you don't know how to it. Any further questions you can post on my talk page. BrianCo 16:21, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

BrianCo, I hate to say it, but I couldn't do it. I also hate to say it but maybe it's "Old dogs don't learn new tricks". I think that I will need someone on this end (which I won't have for a bit) to get me through this. In the meantime, I'd like to have others do it for me per my above request. Thank you BrianCo for your extending help to me!Bert Schlossberg 18:09, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

BrianCo, to show you how bad things are, I tried to put the above comment on your talk page, as you said, and all I get back is "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"

GOT IT!Bert Schlossberg 18:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Draft PNAS submission is ready for your review

Sorry it took me a few days instead of one (been away from the PC), but the first draft of the "Letters" response to PNAS regarding the Lenski paper is ready for your review. Any feedback is appreciated, as it was a challenge to keep it to within their 250-word limit. - DinsdaleP 20:12, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Oceanian Countries

I note we have a category called "Oceanian countries". Unfortunately the correct term is "Oceanic" not oceanian. I must admit I had a little chuckle when I saw the category. Perhaps you should change it.--DamianJohn 16:08, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

DamienJohn, "Oceania" is an official term for those Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian lands and islands in the Pacific to the northeast of Australasia. I assume that "Oceanian" would be the adjective. Guddle 18:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I am from Oceania and have never heard the term Oceanian before. I dont actually think it exists as a term. JJacob 18:41, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Sure Oceania exists, no-one doubts that. What I am saying though is that the correct term (and even it is seldom used) for a group of countries from oceania is oceanic. Perhaps a better term would be Pacific nations, but certainly not "Oceanian" As I am from Oceania, I had hoped perhaps my word would be given some credence. Are you a kiwi JJ?--DamianJohn 18:59, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I am Oceanic! JJacob 19:06, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, European, African, Asian, American... I sense a trend... Human 19:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

According to the Free Online Dictionary, it's Oceanian. Oceanic refers to those countries on the ocean, while Oceanian is those in southern, western, and central Pacific Ocean. In fact, if you google Oceanian, you'll see a number of results referring to those countries. --Jareddr 19:13, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, I have been wrong before! Perhaps Oceanian is right? I have just never heard it before. JJacob 19:16, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

It was the first time I had heard the term as well. --Jareddr 19:24, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Very surprising, since I live in one of the "oceanian" (I still chuckle to myself typing that word) countries and have never heard of it. Still, perhaps what one calls himself is different to what others call him. However I submit to the wisdom of the Free Online Dictionary and Google.--DamianJohn 08:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Smart move, Damian---The Google Shall Set You Free. --Jareddr 08:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

CP Conference

Mr. Schlafly, I included an idea for a public debate with Richard Lenski for the CP conference. Do you think this would be a good idea, or perhaps as a separate event, regarding his ideas on the theory of evolution? Thanks! (Oh, and p.s., perhaps it's time to archive your talk page. I think this is #81 on the list, and when trying to undo an edit on your talk page last night, the overwhelming size of your talk page prevented me from removing the filth from the page.) --Jareddr 18:07, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

A debate sounds great, but evolutionists are almost never willing to debate their work or views in public. Evolutionists do better by censoring the other side, not by debating it. When evolutionists do debate, they are often badly defeated, as happened at Rutgers about 7 years ago.--Aschlafly 18:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I must second the motion for an archive. It takes a long time to load this page!--DamianJohn 19:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Agenda

I couldn't help notice that there isn't a "Liberal Agenda" page. This seems somewhat surprising; is there a reason for the omission, or is it simply that nobody has gotten around to writing it yet? --Benp 20:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

As there are already a lot of Liberal pages and Liberal Agenda page would merely repeat itself. However, in saying that, I do have another idea. Perhaps (I might work on this in the weekend) a summary page bringing together all the liberal articles into a main page "liberal Agenda". Hmmmmm I'll see what I can do. JJacob 20:54, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea; it's certainly a concept that could cover many of the existing pages. I'll be glad to help out. --Benp 20:57, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

A small request

Dear Mr. Schlafly.
So sorry to bother you, but I hope you will be able to help me. Since I have joined Conservapedia, I have enjoyed editing here and adding to its already substantial database - not to mention figuring out wiki-language as I did so. I have "met" some terrific people on here too and I look forward to contributing a great deal more in future. However, a slight problem has arisen in that I am currently back in Tokyo and will be living here full-time from next month. Given the horrendous time difference (we are GMT+9 here), it means that my editing window is limited to either very late at night, or early in the morning - both of which are unlikely to remain viable options once I commence work next month.

Which brings me to the gist of my message. I respectfully ask if you could please consider my request for extended editing hours, if possible. I apologise if I am out of line, it is just that I have a couple of projects on the go, as well as a promise to assist others, which I would hate to see fall behind, purely due to a lack of time - the two largest involve finishing the kanji (and associated) entry, which - I must confess - grew far larger than I originally imagined it would, as well the biographies of the Japanese Emperors. I hope you will find my small contribution helpful so far - again I confess to being pleased to see my shogi entry nominated for a possible Article of the Week.

If you could consider my request favourably, I would be deeply grateful.
Jessica Tanaka (田中ジェッシカ)

I don't know if endorsements count, but JessicaT has done some of the best work I've seen on this site, adding informative, thorough, well-documented content that others have complimented her on as well, including at least one CP Sysop. Please extend her night-edit rights so she can continue her excellent work. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 10:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Jessica, of course we view your request favorably. But as we just saw tonight, there are people who delight in deceit and in harming others. I'm confident that you're not like that, but need to be a bit more cautious due to vandalism by others. That's unfortunate, but I'm hopeful we can grant your request after further review. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Thank you - I understand that. It is a shame that these people don't realise their mindless actions do have consequences for others. I will continue to do my best, in the meantime. God bless. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 08:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I've found where some of those guys brag (or at least monitor)

I'll keep an eye out. It's a good thing these clowns can't keep their mouths shut (so to speak). Jinxmchue 21:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I think they're essentially harmless, in the long run. Oh, and it's not like it was some well kept secret. Absentismens 21:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, the little obsessives are so cute. Nice to know they love me so much, too. Jinxmchue 21:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Now watch as they keep quiet for a while to "throw us off." They are masters of deception over there, I tell you. Jinxmchue 22:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Server Problems?

The consistent downtime of the site (as evidenced by time gaps in edits during the middle of the day), as well as other server problems resulting in repeated posts of the same material, has become increasingly worse it seems. Is this related to the recent upgrade, or the server itself? And as a follow-up, what is being done to correct the problems? It is discouraging to try and make edits during the daytime only to find the site inaccessible. (I know the site is up at the moment, but there's no guarantee it will remain up the entire day). I look forward to your response. Godspeed! --Jareddr 10:16, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

That reminds me of Yogi Berra's quip about a restaurant: "Oh, nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded!"
We'll look into your concern. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Organizations

Mr. Schlafly, with your permission I'd like to create a page entitled "Liberal Organizations." With the liberal page locked, I'm unable to add additional organizations that I've currently listed in the Liberal talk page. I believe there are enough organizations that it should be given its own page, perhaps broken down into "Newspaper", "Television", "Internet", etc. There is an unfortunate plethora of such organizations and a separate page (linked from the original liberal page) would provide CP users a good resource. Hope you agree! --Jareddr 11:29, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Please review Fox's recent edits

Adding material to American Family Association backed solely by a far-left source (and saying he'd "happily add more"), edit warring regarding said material, adding inappropriate material into said article's talk page, etc. Jinxmchue 11:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The material is all well sourced, the organizations are all highly regarded. I doubt that Archbishops have any reason to lie. And since when is saying one will "happily add more" references a problem? That's how we show things to be reliable, rather than just your opinion. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:41, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Ah, yes. Be sure to check out Fox's dishonest defense of his "sources" (which actually was just one source, and an unabashedly dishonest one to boot!) on the AFA talk page. Jinxmchue 11:46, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Looks as if the irrational ones are extremely interested in this situation and are monitoring it very closely. Can't imagine why... (he said with barely concealed sarcasm). Jinxmchue 11:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

TWO links, to articles making direct quotations of public figures. I don't like being called "dishonest", and I find it plain ignorant that you also sling the "dishonest" label at a website you know nothing of, and which isn't even one of the sites involved in the two sources, other than as a host. Please be more rigorous in your scrutiny, and cease voicing personal insults towards me. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 12:08, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

We have rules here about unproductive activity, to prevent exactly this sort of prattling on. The two of you are spending an inordinate amount of time throwing random complaints and insults at each other, rather than actually doing productive work like some of the rest of us. Filling up Andy's talk page accusing each other of being parodists is not helpful to the wider project. At least try and settle on a compromise for the AFA article. My recommendation would be to keep Fox's work there, but change the references to point to primary, reliable sources (which should have been the case anyway). I hope this helps. MikeR 14:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Contacted by journalist

Andrew, I don't have a current email address for you, but was contacted this afternoon by Peter Hitchens. There are a few matters arising from this that I would like to share/discuss with you, but obviously not on a public forum. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Fox, I was tied up with other matters today. I'll send you an email on this site with my email address for further discussion.--Aschlafly 19:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Article on Reasonism

User KyZan uploaded content from this site [11], which was reverted due to copyright; however this user may be the author himself, in which case it could be allowed. Any thoughts? Karajou 16:05, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

If this article is accepted here, it should be categorized as an essay. Karajou 16:14, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  1. [12],
  2. [13],, May 26, 2008
  3. [14],, 1998