User talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked

A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)[1] , also known as the Intelligent design case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching Intelligent Design to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."[2]

In his opinion, Judge John E. Jones III noted the case Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact." Jones came to this same conclusion himself, relying on the Establishment test, the Lemon test, and applying the reasonable student standard that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case itself.[3] The Judge uses this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites Selman and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the Selman holding.[4]

Judge John E. Jones has been accused of copying heavily from the ALCU's briefs by the Discovery Institute, an institution that filed amicus curiae briefs in the case.[5] The allegation is a partial truth.[6]The judge also ordered costs for the plaintiff, in accord with civil procedure protocol, totalling over $2 million.[7]


  2. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F.Supp.2d 707.
  3. Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in Selman by the Court's own reasoning), compare Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.
  4. See Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.
  6. This is true with regards to Judge Jones' statements in the early parts of the opinion manifesting his agreement with the ACLU's briefs, but the legal reasoning of the case - constituting the bulk of the opinion - is all original. See generally Kitzmiller, 400 F.Supp.2d at 707.
  7. See 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).

I've come to these conclusions based on close reading of the case. I deleted the line about preventing appeal - it's not in the opinion - and I removed the line about Selman being vacated, since it seems to me unnecessary since it's only one of a few cites. Note that none of this is opinion. It's all fact. For example, if you doubt my change to the wording of the Discovery Institute's "90% plagiarized" comment, I suggest you read the whole opinion.

If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to discuss it with me over e-mail ( or on this page, or on my page. I'd rather you edit this as you see fit than toss it all out :-) !--AmesG 00:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

So...?--AmesG 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm having image upload troubles; If it's not a hassle, could you please upload the image here and let me know where you put it? I want to use it in the welcome template. Thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 01:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Fire in the Reichstag

This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But as the statement as it is now is simplistic can can better be removed. --Order 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)


Enjoy yourself here since everybody on Wikipedia knows you are a vain useless non contributor. Zaheerabbas 01:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Hows teh arb cabal? Zaheerabbas 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Conservapedia

Here's a non-obscene version, I hope it meets your standards and is not censored like most non-Conservative content. *edit: ugh, formatting problems, sorry*

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Conservapedia. Please add to this.

1. Conservapedia condemns the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. despite B.C.E. and C.E. being the recognized standard world-wide. The change was made to not alienate other cultures around the world, since using B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) is supposed to be an international standard, not an American standard only.

2. Conservapedia gives credit to America, Christianity (sometimes radical Christianity and Creationism), and Conservative views, many times forgetting other factors involved, other countries, other religions, and other points of view. On the main page, Conservapedia even says that "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America". However, often full credit is not due to either Christianity or America, the world does not revolve around Christian Americans.

3. Conservapedia claims it is correcting the Liberal bias found in Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia shows both sides of possible debates in the majority of their articles. Conservapedia on the other hand only includes the arguments for the conservative view, and Christian view. Conservapedia, while claiming to be less biased, includes an article called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which slanders Wikipedia in many ways, often giving incorrect information and irrelevant arguments against its articles.

4. Conservapedia lets anyone with a Conservative, Christian point of view to edit their pages, but any edits done from another point of view are removed, while Wikipedia lets anyone from any point of view edit their pages, and payed experts and scientists edit and make changes to keep the information extremely accurate.

5. Conservapedia claims that twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative compared to Liveral, while three times as many editors identify themselves as Liveral as compared to Conservative on Wikipedia. However, the fact that 2/3 of Americans are Conservative does not mean that all information should be adjusted to have an approximate 2/3 bias towards Conservatives, facts are facts. Also, the fact that 3/4 editors on Wikipedia are Liberal means nothing since they are professionals, and are payed to remain unbiased while they make changes with legitimate sources. There is no logic, truth, or relevance in saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than the American public, and we also must remember than Wikipedia is meant for the entire world, not just Americans.

6. Conservapedia also condemns Wikipedia for claiming 1.5 million articles, but not all of them being useful. However, Wikipedia never claimed that their articles were educational. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which contains information about anything and everything.

7. Conservapedia restricts editing of many pages that are considered to be controversial, but some of these pages are purely restricted because visitors with non-conservative, non-christian, or non-american views correct the biased material.

8. The majority of articles about animals include an amazingly short stub of relevant information (generally the animal's description), while the last 80% of the article or so is all about the creation of said animal. In most cases, the creation section of these articles only includes the views of Creationists, and there is little to no mention of Evolution, despite the evidence supporting it.

9. In more than one case, Evolution is also thrown aside and discarded with completely false information about the dating of fossils being incorrect, despite the method of dating fossils (carbon dating) being incredibly accurate. Evolution is generally thrown aside because the fossil evidence proving the Earth's age is at least several million years old (if not several billion), conflicts with the views of Young Earth Creationists. Evolution is also discarded because of the apparent lack of mid-evolution evidence, despite there being many examples of such.

10. References are seldomly cited, even on the most popular of pages, and when they are cited, they often include very little literature and many websites which are statistically much less accurate. The majority of the time, if there are sources, most if not all of the sources will be relating only to the Christian/Creationist, Conservative, American point of view, therefore anything written about the other side of any possible debates are being written with no sources, and the sources used for the Conservative side of the debate are almost always extremely biased.

11. On the main page, the Conservapedia claims that it includes 4,700 educational articles that are student-friendly. However, the majority of the articles are extremely short stubs with few to no references that show only a single point of view. Also, the majority of the articles are written with poor grammar and a low grade reading level, which is hardly appropriate for student use.

12. Conservapedia has since edited the following statement which was included on the main page: "Conservapedia has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists." However, to claim that Conservapedia is scientific when it often states that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect solely because "there is no evidence" or that it's "just a theory" despite fossil evidence and many animals, including humans backing up this theory, is very unscientific.

13. Conservapedia also displays is bias through the use of American spelling of words only, and in fact points out that Wikipedia uses the "foreign" spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. This is true, however the English language was derived in England - where the spelling of words most certainly is correct if they invented the language. The so called "foreign" spelling of English words on Wikipedia is in fact correct for the rest of the world, and it should not have to cater to any country which uses different spelling which is in fact an altered version of the original, correct, English language. The fact that Wikipedia redirects to the original English spelling of American words shows that they are serving the entire world, and it is in fact conveniant for everyone in this case.

14. Articles such as the one on Kangaroos, and the one on Dinosaurs have ridiculous claims which are used solely to support the Young Earth Creationist view. For example, the article states that from the Origins Theory Model that Kangaroos originated in the Middle East. However, Kangaroos would have had absolutely no way of travelling as far as they would need to during Pangea to end up in Australia, and even moreso after Pangea. Kangaroos can only live in a certain climate, and it is physically impossible for them to have originated in the Middle East. The only references are to Christian and Creationist websites, which are extremely biased and try as hard as they can to prove that their ideas are the one and only correct ones. The article on dinosaurs is similar, and has very little about dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Instead, the article focuses on how creationists believe that fossil evidence is incorrect because of dating methods (even though this is physically impossible to be incorrect, since carbon dating is extremely precise). There are no references citing where these fossil records could possibly be proven wrong in any way, and even mentions that the Young Earth Creationists believe this primarily because of biblical sources, which can hardly be used as a reference. Once again the only other references cite Creationist and Christian websites only. There is absolutely no mention of even the possibility of an ice age, a meteor, or anything else relevant, it is purely talk about Creationism, and to try and support its claims it says there is even a possibility that these dinosaurs still live on Earth without us seeing them (even with satellite technology somehow).

15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".

16. Conservapedia attempts to look like a 'real encyclopedia' by avoiding gossip, as seen in Differences with Wikipedia, while featuring articles such as Examples of Bias in Wikipedia and the Wikipedia article (an unencyclopedic entry consisting of gossip about Wikipedia).

Note on item 5. of the list on bias

Conservapedia observed correctly there are about twice as many conservatives than liberals in the American population. If you would have followed the link to the poll, you would have found that Conservapedia, or Aschlafly, forgot to mention the moderates. 2/5 th of all Americans are moderate, 1/3 conservative, and 1/5th liberals (and the remaining 1/15th have no opinion, apparently). So a ratio of 2:1 conservatices vs liberals, does not mean that 2/3rd are conservative. --Order 15 March 2007 20:45 (AEST)

The ratio is completely irrelevant. The point is, facts are facts, and Wikipedia and Conservapedia should not be attempting to cater to a particular preference of the majority of Americans. Especially when the articles are available globally.--ALFa 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
If the ratio are irrelevant, why do we use them. It just make us look bad, like we fudge numbers as we please. --Order 15 March 2007 10:30 (AEST)
I'm not sure why Conservapedia tried to use them to discredit Wikipedia, ask the creator. Either way, using statistics in that way, whether correct or not, is misleading and irrelevant. It proves absolutely nothing. --ALFa 01:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, it is also not true that more Americans are conservative than liberal. Most Americans are pro-choice, over half of all Americans think that gays should be granted some kind of partnership rights, most Americans support social security, most Americans trust Democrats more on issues such as education, economics. In most recent polls more Americans trust Democras on national security issues than they do Republicans. And if we define conservativism the way that this site does, than it represents a very small minority of American opinion.--Jack 19:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive

Your participation would be welcomed at the newly created Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please contact me with any questions, I think this can be a great idea! --Hojimachongtalk 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Question about edits

Hey, I didn't get a reply on the abuse page so I wanted to run this by you... since i think you're the one that archived it"

I'll be honest, I can't tell if User:Pwaynes is editing in good faith or is a subtle vandal. Here they are in full [2] and here are some of his edits:

In Democratic Party: "Historically, however, the Democrats have neglected national defense, leaving America weaker."

In women putting quotes around "Christian" churches that believe women should not have to submit to their husbands.

In Barack Obama: "Commentators have noted that he has many strikes against him in the eyes of the American people. He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times."

In Bill Clinton: Removing the fact that Clinton was never charged in the whitewater scandal. (He also removed the fact that GWB didn't receive a majority or a plurality of the vote in 2000 but that was irrelevant anyway).

In censorship: "and is often justified as the material in question is usual obscene, pornographic, satanic, or otherwise harmful."

In George H.W. Bush: "The Bush dynasty is generally considered to be one of the greatest american political families, along with the Adams. This is in contrast to the irresponsible and wreckless Kennedy family."

These statements are all unsourced... as the bias implicated is opposed to my bias but possibly in line with the website, I leave it up to you to decide if these are in good faith. Myk 18:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since I reported this:

In New York(state) : "It is a widely recognized liberal hotbed."

In Pachactui : Pachactui is a fictional Japanese Pokemon. He is a yellow, electric, mouse-like creature, and is known for shouting "Pachactui!" OK... this is definitely vandalism as he is clearly referencing Pikachu. Still, I would like to know if the others are vandalism also so I know what to report.

Anyways... all of his edits are of the same tone. Were this wikipedia, I would have no qualms about reverting 90% of his edits... but maybe that is my liberal bias. What is Conservapedia's stance on these edits? Oh, and he's removed the stub tags on every one of the articles that has had them. Myk 21:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Myk 01:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Your Hitler edit

Sorry to say this, but your last Hitler display a rather naive and erroneous understanding of the history of the 3rd Reich. As the article is now, you can better revert it to the version from a few days ago. Even though it is very short, it manages to mispresent a lot of things. --Order 18 March, 10:00 (AEST)

Thanks for unlocking. But I am not sure how to fix it. It is just too much. --Order 19 March, 18:00 (AEST)