Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jeffrey Dahmer

2011-11-30T04:29:44Z

Aortuso:

'''Jeffrey Dahmer''' (1960-1994) was a [[serial killer]] who murdered at least 17 teenage boys and young men between 1978 and 1991. After his last victim escaped and notified authorities, they found a gruesome scene at his apartment: the remains of 11 of his murdered victims. He was sent to prison for the rest of life, and killed in jail. Dahmer was especially unnerving for the general public because, far from looking crazed, he was actually attractive.

According to adherents.com, "Jeffrey Dahmer's homosexuality ... [was] not unusual among serial killers. ... Other well known homosexual or bisexual serial killers include Andrew Cunanan, [[John Wayne Gacy]], Patrick Wayne Kearney, Gilles de Rais, Randy Steven Kraft, Michael Swango, Andrei Chikatilo, David D. Hill, Wayne Williams, Larry Eyler, Henry Lee Lucas, Fritz Haarmann, Max Fletcher, and dozens more."<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Jeffrey_Dahmer.html</ref>

Dahmer, after being discharged from the military for excessive drinking in 1981, released him to [[Miami|Miami Beach]], [[Florida]], where he spent a short amount of time in a hospital until he was kicked out for his excessive [[alcoholism]]. He later moved in with his grandmother in [[Wisconsin]] for six years, where his crimes began. In 1988, his grandmother asked him to move out because she couldn't stand his late night ventures and foul smells coming from the basement. He then found an apartment in [[Milwaukee]], where he continued his crimes. Between 1988 and 1991, Dahmer had been sentenced for multiple crimes, including exposing himself to children, and was a registered [[sex offender|sexual offender]]. One of Dahmer's victims temporarily escaped, bleeding and naked and was found by police, but Dahmer convinced the officers everything was fine and the boy was returned to him. Dahmer killed him the next day.

==Imprisonment==

Following his arrest in the summer of 1991 after reaching a pace of killing nearly one person a week, police investigated Dahmer's apartment and discovered photos, human remains, and body parts positioned in the form of a "[[shrine]]". Evidence and a later confession by Dahmer revealed he had engaged in necrophilia and [[cannibalism]].

With overwhelming amounts of evidence against Dahmer in court, his only option was to not guilty by reason of [[insanity]]. The courts found him sane and sentenced him to roughly 957 years in prison. After the hearing, Dahmer expressed remorse, and had wished for his own death.

While serving time at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, Dahmer, who had not been in a church since he was five, began to review religious material sent to him by his father Roy Ratcliff and said he made an admission of his sins and accepted [[Christ]] as his savior. Ratcliff, a local preacher, met with his son and agreed to [[baptism|baptize]] him. Shortly thereafter, Dahmer was attacked by an inmate in the prison [[chapel]], but suffered only minor wounds.

==Death==

On November 28, 1994, Dahmer and another fellow inmate, Jesse Anderson, were both [[club|bludgeon]]ed to death by another inmate, Christopher Scarver, with a bar from a weight machine while on work detail. Both inmates died from the attack; Dahmer died en route to the hospital from severe [[trauma|head trauma]].

His mother wanted his brain to be donated for research, but Jeffrey Dahmer himself had insisted on being [[cremation|cremated]]. Applying applicable law, a judge held that Dahmer's desire to be cremated should prevail.

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dahmer, Jeffrey}}

[[Category:Serial Killers]]
[[Category:Homosexuals]]

Marlboro Man

2011-11-30T04:25:35Z

Aortuso: Grammer

The '''Marlboro Man''' ad campaign glorified [[smoking]]. It employed a model dressed as a cowboy to evoke an image of rugged [[masculinity]]. The model died at age 51 from [[lung cancer]].
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Health]]
[[category:advertising]]

Information technology

2011-11-29T00:05:41Z

Aortuso: Grammer

'''Information technology''', otherwise known as IT, is the use of computers and software to manage information. Can also be described as MIS (Management Information Services). Information technology involves information storing, protecting, processing and transmitting as well as retrieving data.

==See Also==
*[[Information systems]]

[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:business]]

Boudica

2011-11-15T07:40:48Z

Aortuso: Should be capitals

[[Image:Boudicastatue.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Statue of Boudica near Westminster Pier, London, with her two daughters upon a chariot.]]
'''Boudica''' (also spelled Boadicea and Boudicca) (25-62AD) was a queen of the [[Iceni]] during the reign of the Roman Emperor [[Nero]]. The Iceni were a [[Celts|Celtic]] tribe during the Roman occupation of [[Britain]] that inhabited the northern part of the area now known as East Anglia .

Prasutagus, King of the Iceni, ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome following [[Claudius]]'s conquest of Britain in 43 AD. When he died, he left his kingdom jointly to his wife, two daughters and the Roman Emperor. However, unlike the native Britons, Rome did not recognize female inheritance and annexed the kingdom. Under the orders of the new Roman Governor of Britain, Prasutagus's widow, Boudica was flogged and her daughters [[rape]]d.

While the Roman governor was distracted by a campaign against rebels on the island of [[Anglesey]] in north [[Wales]], Boudica led a revolt of the Iceni along with other native tribes. The [[Roman]] cities of [[Colchester]] (Camulodunum), [[St Albans]] (Verulamium) and [[London|Londinium]] were razed (burnt) so thoroughly that the thick layer of ash left is still clearly visible today. The [[Rome|Roman]] ninth legion was routed and between 70,000 and 80,000 civilians were said to have been killed.

After her initial successes, the Roman forces rallied against the revolt and engaged with the rebels in the [[Battle of Watling Street]]. Despite overwhelming numerical supremacy Boudica's disorganised army was defeated by the Roman's superior tactics. It is said that following the defeat she committed suicide by taking poison<ref> [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/britannia/boudica/boudicanrevolt.html] Encyclopaedia Romana: Boudica</ref>.

She is usually depicted riding a [[chariot]] with [[scythe]]s attached to its wheels. [[Tacitus]] describes her sympathetically, stating that she was ''terrifying of mien'' and that she had red [[hair]].

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

Journalism

2011-11-11T06:25:53Z

Aortuso: spelling

'''Journalism''' is the skill of compiling, editing and presenting the news. Journalism exists in many mediums, from the traditional print forms ([[magazine]]s, [[newspaper]]s) to [[television]] and, particularly in the last five years, internet forums.

==See Also==
*[[Journalistic malpractice]]

[[category:Journalism|*]]

Cramming

2011-11-11T06:03:57Z

Aortuso: Incorrect spelling

'''Cramming''' is a [[slang]] term referring to the practice of studying intensively to absorb large volumes of information in a very short period of time, often in preparation for exams.

The phrase is also used in the telecommunications industry to refer to the [[fraud]]ulent practice in which customers are billed for enhanced [[telecommunications]] features such as voice mail, caller-ID and call-waiting that they have not ordered.

== See also ==
*[[Access charge]]
*[[Slamming]]
[[Category:Education]][[Category:Telecommunications]]

Rugby union

2011-11-11T06:01:03Z

Aortuso: Updating

'''Rugby union''' is a sport played throughout the world, but is especially popular in [[New Zealand]], the Pacific Islands, [[Australia]], [[South Africa]], [[Great Britain]], [[Ireland]] and [[France]].

== Rules ==

For the rules of rugby, see [[Rugby_%28Sport%29|rugby (sport)]]

== Competition ==

=== International ===

Every 4 years, the IRB holds a World Cup, in which all the best countries throughout the world
participate in. The winners of this competition is crowned world champions for the next four years. Here is a list of previous World Cup winners:

*1987: New Zealand
*1991: Australia
*1995: South Africa
*1999: Australia (2)
*2003: England
*2007: South Africa (2)
*2011: New Zealand (2)

New Zealand (also commonly known as the All Blacks due to their black playing kit) has won the World Cup twice, and have by far the best overall test record, winning 318 of their 429 test matches to date (74%) and are widely regarded by many as the best team in the world. South Africa is second with a winning percentage of 63%. The All Blacks has also spent the most time at the top of the IRB world rankings, since it was introduced in 2003.[http://www.stats.allblacks.com]

In addition to the World Cup, international competitions are played each year, one for the major northern hemisphere teams (called the Six Nations), and one for the southern hemisphere teams (called the Tri-Nations). In 2012 the Tri-Nations will be changed to the Four Nations with the inclusion of Argentina. The current champions of the Six Nations are France, and the Tri Nations champions are South Africa.

===Provincial===

Two international provincial competitions are held annually, the ''Super 14'' in the Southern Hemisphere and the ''Heiniken Cup'' in Europe. The ''Super 14'' is contested between teams from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the European Competition between teams from Ireland, Great Britain, Italy and France.
[[Category:Rugby]]

Talk:World History Midterm Exam

2011-11-01T04:56:29Z

Aortuso: /* Suggested improvements on exam */

== Post answers here for grading (enrolled students have already taken this exam) ==
===My Answers===
#C
#B
#C
#D
#B
#B
#A
#D
#D
#C
#A
#D
#C
#A
#D
#B
#B
#C
#A
#A
#D
#C
#A
#B
#C
#A
#B
#D
#C
#C
#B
#C
#B
#C
#C
#A
E.C. 1 A

E.C. 2 D
--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 23:15, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

===HollyS===
1c. 2b. 3c. 4d. 5b. 6c. 7a. 8d. 9d. 10b.

11a. 12d. 13c. 14a. 15d. 16b. 17b. 18c. 19a. 20a.

21d. 22c. 23a. 24b. 25c. 26a. 27b. 28d. 29b. 30c.

31b. 32b. 33a. 34a. 35c. 36d.

Seleucus: b. Chivalry: d.

[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:25, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Top Scores ==

With 46 not yet graded, the top scores so far are:

*34

== Suggested improvements on exam ==
Not have Aschlafly post the questions [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:56, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Rugby World Cup

2011-10-27T03:45:06Z

Aortuso:

The [[International Rugby Board|IRB]] '''Rugby World Cup''' is the most prestigious tournament in the sport of [[rugby (Sport)|rugby union]]. It is contested every four years by 20 national teams. It was first held in 1987 but has grown to be one of the world's largest sporting events.

The next Rugby World Cup will be held in England in 2015. Followed by Japan in 2019.

==List of Tournament Winners==

1987 [[New Zealand]]

1991 [[Australia]]

1995 [[South Africa]]

1999 [[Australia]]

2003 [[England]]

2007 [[South Africa]]

2011 [[New Zealand]]

[[Category:Rugby]]

Mesosphere

2011-10-22T04:39:54Z

Aortuso: Adding info

The '''Mesosphere''' is the region of the [[atmosphere]] that spans altitudes of 48 kilometers to 80 kilometers (50 miles.). It is found directly above the [[Stratosphere]] and below the [[Thermosphere]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Meteorology]]

Drinking

2011-10-04T04:26:16Z

Aortuso: Info

'''Drinking''' literally refers to the imbibing of any liquid into the body, but in modern vernacular has come to be associated with the imbibing of [[alcohol]], specifically ethanol, or ethyl-alcohol, which is the main intoxicating substance in "over the counter" alcohol products. The [[Bible]] speaks out against becoming [[drunk]]. There are varying opinions on the acceptability of drinking in general among various religious denominations as long as drunkenness does not occur.

In the United States there are laws against under-aged drinking which vary from state to state. There are also laws against [[drinking and driving]] with each state having different rules on how much alcohol can be in the bloodstream and still be acceptable for operating a vehicle. The penalties for drunk driving also vary from state to state.

== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]
*[[Alcoholism]]
*[[Teetotalism]]
[[Category:Health]]

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-10-04T04:22:27Z

Aortuso: clam down

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}
:::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::You didn't provide a convincing case. Plus, you provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true. In addition, moral depravity [[Atheism and morality|is still a good reason to list first.]] The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] Also, [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Your argument is circular: Moral Depravity causes atheism and because of atheism people become morally depraved. Sort of "Chicken and the egg", no? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I see that Max, Conservapedia's atheist apologist has shown up. The prophet Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Second, a deceitful heart can become even more depraved. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Calling you out on your poor scholarship =/= atheist apologist. You show me where i have been an apologist for atheist behavior or retract. I am trying to make CP better but looking more and more like a wasted effort. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::My only comment on this will be. Max I fear you're fighting a losing battle. User:Conservative is not interested in changing his world view. So despite what even I find insulting, please try and make this site a better place so you can show people the good stuff and not, well, the frankly weird and certainly not encyclopedic[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:22, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I can look to find some sources I like as far as "acculturation". Plus, I could include in the section how bad company corrupts good morals and cite applicable cases. For example, the [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T07:05:43Z

Aortuso: /* Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
::{|class="wikitable"
|style "background: lightgrey"|
#Don't use the preview button!
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
#Really, don't use the preview button!
…
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T07:04:44Z

Aortuso: /* Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
::{|class="wikitable"
|style "background: lightgrey"|
#Don't use the preview button!
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
#Really, don't use the preview button!
…
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of you conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Bilateral symmetry

2011-09-19T02:20:37Z

Aortuso: Added Info

An [[organism]] possesses a '''bilateral symmetry''' if it can only be cut into two identical halves by a single [[longitude|longitudinal]] cut along its center which divides it into right and left halves.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

Human beings are almost, but not quite, bilaterally symmetric. From the outside it appears as if our left and right sides are mirror images of each other but there are asymmetries in some of the internal organs; for example, there is only one appendix, on the right side; the heart and the big blood vessels emerging from it are asymmetrical. This is also relevent for the liver, gall bladder, and pancreas.

==See also==
*[[Radial symmetry]]
*[[Spherical symmetry]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Bilateral symmetry

2011-09-19T02:17:29Z

Aortuso: Minor grammer

An [[organism]] possesses a '''bilateral symmetry''' if it can only be cut into two identical halves by a single [[longitude|longitudinal]] cut along its center which divides it into right and left halves.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

Human beings are almost, but not quite, bilaterally symmetric. From the outside it appears as if our left and right sides are mirror images of each other but there are asymmetries in some of the internal organs; for example, there is only one appendix, on the right side; the heart and the big blood vessels emerging from it are asymmetrical.

==See also==
*[[Radial symmetry]]
*[[Spherical symmetry]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-19T02:06:54Z

Aortuso: /* You know, */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::This meant to go above, sorry[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]]

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-19T02:05:08Z

Aortuso: /* You know, */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

User talk:DamianJohn

2011-08-27T02:40:45Z

Aortuso:

Hi Damian, you joined conservapedia before me however let me welcome you!
The reason I post here is to let you know, as you created the page, that I made some changes to the Destiny Church page.
Just a heads up! God bless.[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Got your message. A few people argue with some of my edits too, although I do try to go by what the better historians have to say.
:Best wishes.[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 19:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== World history guide ==

The basics are just about done, huh?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:18, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah we have done pretty well. I'm gonna keep adding to the more advanced stuff when I get spare time. It is hard to get into a sentence or two basic information and something interesting as well. I have learnt a few things (eg I thought the Huns were from Germany - apparently not). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Yeah. I'll help you with that soon.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:54, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
== Tonight ==
: Final of the Tri-Nations. Kiwi in Oz makes me nervous [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Precambrian

2011-08-27T01:22:37Z

Aortuso: Fix

According to [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] scientists the '''Precambrian''', or Cryptozoic, is the period of the geologic timescale from the formation of Earth (around 4.5 billion years before the present era) to the evolution of abundant macroscopic hard-shelled fossils. This marked the beginning of the [[Cambrian]], some 542 million years ago. These scientists believe that the majority of the evidence existing around the Precambrian has largely been discovered in the past four or five decades. However they also believe much has been destroyed or hidden by long-term geological processes such as erosion and plate tectonics.

== Young earth creation scientists' view ==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that there are numerous lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth [[paradigm]] is errant and has many [[anomaly|anomalies]].

==See Also==
*[[Creation science]]
*[[Geologic system]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Geologic Systems]]

Precambrian

2011-08-27T01:09:05Z

Aortuso:

According to [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] scientists the '''Precambrian''', or Cryptozoic, is the period of the geologic timescale from the formation of Earth (around 4.5 billion years before the present era) to the evolution of abundant macroscopic hard-shelled fossils. This marked the beginning of the [[Cambrian]], some 542 million years ago. These scientists believe that the majority of the evidence existing about the Precambrian has largely been discovered in the past four or five decades, but much has been destroyed or hidden by long-term geological processes such as erosion and plate tectonics.

== Young earth creation scientists' view ==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that there are numerous lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth [[paradigm]] is errant and has many [[anomaly|anomalies]] (for details please see: and ).

==See Also==
*[[Creation science]]
*[[Geologic system]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Geologic Systems]]

Precambrian

2011-08-27T01:08:04Z

Aortuso: Grammer

According to [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] scientists the '''Precambrian''' ,or Cryptozoic, is the period of the geologic timescale from the formation of Earth (around 4.5 billion years before the present era) to the evolution of abundant macroscopic hard-shelled fossils. This marked the beginning of the [[Cambrian]], some 542 million years ago. These scientists believe that the majority of the evidence existing about the Precambrian has largely been discovered in the past four or five decades, but much has been destroyed or hidden by long-term geological processes such as erosion and plate tectonics.

== Young earth creation scientists' view ==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that there are numerous lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth [[paradigm]] is errant and has many [[anomaly|anomalies]] (for details please see: and ).

==See Also==
*[[Creation science]]
*[[Geologic system]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Geologic Systems]]

Supersonic

2011-08-27T01:00:21Z

Aortuso: Conversion

'''Supersonic''' is a term used to describe things which fly faster than the [[speed of sound]]. At 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 celsius), for an object to fly faster than sound, it must travel 761 miles per hour (1224.71 kilometers per hour).

American [[P-47 Thunderbolt]]s in World War II came close to supersonic speeds in a dive, but the first person to break the sound barrier in level flight was [[Charles Yeager|"Chuck" Yeager]] in the [[X-1]] experimental aircraft.
[[Category: Science]]

Supersonic

2011-08-27T00:58:33Z

Aortuso: add info

'''Supersonic''' is a term used to describe things which fly faster than the [[speed of sound]]. At 70 degrees Fahrenheit, for an object to fly faster than sound, it must travel 761 miles per hour (1224.71 kilometers per hour).

American [[P-47 Thunderbolt]]s in World War II came close to supersonic speeds in a dive, but the first person to break the sound barrier in level flight was [[Charles Yeager|"Chuck" Yeager]] in the [[X-1]] experimental aircraft.
[[Category: Science]]

Wellington

2011-08-24T11:49:16Z

Aortuso:

'''Wellington''' is the capital of and third largest city in [[New Zealand]]. It is situated at the southern end of the North Island.
Wellington sits on extremely active fault-lines and [[earthquakes]] are common. In 1855 Wellington was rocked by the largest [[earthquake]] ever recorded in [[New Zealand]] which lifted up large tracts of Wellington harbour.
In native Maori it's is called "Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara" which translates as "the great harbour of Tara".

[[File:Wellington New Zealand WC.jpg]]

[[Category:New Zealand Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Capital Cities]]

Wellington

2011-08-24T11:48:40Z

Aortuso: More info to follow as I learn it.

'''Wellington''' is the capital of and third largest city in [[New Zealand]]. It is situated at the southern end of the North Island.
Wellington sits on extremely active fault-lines and [[earthquakes]] are common. In 1855 Wellington was rocked by the largest [[earthquake]] ever recorded in [[New Zealand]] which lifted up large tracts of Wellington harbour.
In native Maori ts is called "Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara" which translates as "the great harbour of Tara".

[[File:Wellington New Zealand WC.jpg]]

[[Category:New Zealand Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Capital Cities]]

User talk:JamesWilson/ArchiveAugust2011

2011-08-24T11:27:54Z

Aortuso: /* Great block and revert */

== Seger ==

Heavens, I didn't realize he'd been in so many bands in the beginning. He was rather fickle, wasn't he? :-) The article's off to a great start - my only suggestion would be to add dates to when he joined the different bands. Also, and this is my own personal preference, so do with it as you will, but for the name format, I would suggest '''Robert "Bob" Seger''', rather than the way it now.

I'm trying to teach myself how to make wikitables. I would like to see the albums and/or songs under discography for the different musicians formatted that way - I think it would make the article appear neater. I'll let you know how my lessons go! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:All right! I'll fix the name and get the dates from my sources! I will perhaps try contacting another Sysop for the images for both articles.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:19, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. If you need assistance, there is a list of Conservapedia administrators [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:29, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==flickr ==

I am not sure I can fill your picture upload requests. We are constantly harassed by liberals over picture rights. All your pictures are basically anonymous, somebody uploaded someones works. I couldn't tell from the terms of use [http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/us/details.html] if non-monetary websites like Conservapedia are granted use. I know user:conservative has uploaded from Flickr. I'll need more info before proceeding. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:29, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If we can't use flickr, what are some acceptable sites where I could find similar images? I can look for more info, but I'm not sure where it would be.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::We can use any image from Wikipedia. Any website you find a picture, check to see if they grant free use in the terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, Jpatt! I'll check Wikimedia Commons!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I got some replacements from the Commons!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Edit ==

Hi! Last night, while I was editing some new articles, I noticed some errors in one of the ones I had just created. When I tried to edit it, however, it said that editing was limited to administrators and edit. How can I join this edit group? Thanks so much! --[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 18:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edit privileges (like block privileges, upload privileges, or SkipCaptcha privileges) are based on merit (contributions, a genuine track record, etc.). Nighttime editing (in the U.S.) on Conservapedia is disabled to avoid vandalism. I myself actually have Block and SkipCaptcha. But, edit and upload I guess are further restricted (I assume from SharonW's request eariler). My advice is to continue editing and when you have sufficient credentials, request edit privileges. Source:[[Conservapedia:User rights]].--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, ok. Do you know who I should ask to request it? I probably won't do that until I have some more experience here under my belt. But, at the moment, my schedule is kind of in flux and, as you may have noticed, many of my edits happen at weird times of night, so the ability to freely edit then would be a great help. But I certainly understand the need to be safe and wait.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 22:16, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Question about the songs list on Elvis article ==

I was thinking about making a table for the discography too, but I'm a little uncertain about something. Are the songs listed all of his #1 songs, or are they all of his top 40 hits? I was trying to decide what headings to add to the table. And yes, I think it's ready too. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:56, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
#1 songs.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:41, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Featured article ==

We need to change it to [[Elvis Presley]], right? I'll post a message on Andy's talk page - maybe he'll change the main page for us. It's worth a try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:30, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. You can try.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:33, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Discography tables ==

Yes, I'll make one for Seger, and for Jimmy Buffett too. I won't get to them until tomorrow night, probably, because I'm leaving tonight for a business trip. I should be able to work on them at the hotel tomorrow. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:33, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I got to the hotel early enough to do the discography table for the Seger article. Let me know if it's alright! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:54, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Looks all right. Thanks!!! How's the trip?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:59, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hi! I noticed that you blocked [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/ThePuppyTurtle User:ThePuppyTurtle] for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolutionism&diff=prev&oldid=887283 this edit], which seems a perfectly legitimate correction (particularly in that you didn't actually revert said edit), despite the awkward word choice of the summary. Was this edit in error, or was the block for an inappropriate username? I don't mean to nitpick, but it seems a little harsh to block a User for editing that Adam was created in a piece about Creationism. Thanks!

--[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:16, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, he was blocked for the recreation of a potentially-slanderous page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:22, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, forgive me. May I ask what the page was? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The page was "Lefayad1991".--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 08:13, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Johnny Cash discography ==

How do you want to handle his discography - the man had a huge amount of albums. I took a glance at WP; they have them on a separate page, and divided into studio, live, collaborative, compilation, gospel, soundtrack and Christmas albums. I'm not sure we need to do that. What are your ideas on the tables? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:12, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:I mainly want to focus on studio and gospel.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 15:15, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Okay then - I'll work on the tables this weekend. I'm going to be in and out of the house because we're moving and have a lot of painting/repair/tiling to do at the new house. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:18, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks!!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 15:22, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh dear - the mind, it is a sieve! This week's been rough with painting and packing and work, and I just forgot all about it. I'm so sorry! I'll get to it either tonight or in the morning, promise! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:15, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I uploaded the discography - then noticed I did the title/date backwards from the other tables I've made. I'm not going to change it though, unless it really, ''really'' bothers you! ;-) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:19, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Changes to your block ==

I changed your block reason for SmartPeopleHere to spamming because that's what the user was doing, not vandalizing. I also extended the block. I hope you don't mind. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:OK.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:06, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

==Featured article suggestion==

With all the controversy over the cross shaped I beams at the 911 memorial, maybe [http://www.conservapedia.com/Separation_of_church_and_state Separation of church and state] could be a featured article? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:Nominated.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Super Congress ==

Hi! Do you think the [[Super Congress]] article should maybe be moved to its official title, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction? I can see it being fine either way, since its often referred to as a super congress, but I'm not exactly sure what the naming protocol is here. Thanks!--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 14:55, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, we should probably move it to its official title. However, we will need an administrator to do it--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:57, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you! ==

Thank you for the welcome, it was very sweet. [[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 22:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11 ==

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 08:07, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Yes ==

And they claim they want to "discuss" their edits. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:39, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's a big joke. Conservapedia is not an evolutionist site. They can go to Wikipedia if they want to write evolutionary-based articles on dinosaurs.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::The children are bored and it's waayyy past their bedtime.--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:45, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Indeed.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meatloaf ==

Ironically, I am listening to his ''Welcome to the Neighborhood'' album on my iPod as I write this. Not a problem on the discography - give me a couple of days. Still moving! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:15, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! That was a good album. Please take your time.... no rush.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== You initial panel contributions ==

Your initial comments have been added to the proceedings [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. Feel free to add more. It is basically a ongoing conversation until the panel hammers out what they can agree on. I deleted the other material as it was merely duplication. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Conservative!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:23, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Your welcome. I didn't delete this since it was in your user workspace, but please feel free to delete it as it is duplicate content at CP now: [[User:JamesWilson/My Ideas About Blocking]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Could you please delete it, as I am not a Sysop? Thanks much!!!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:43, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Longest running basic rights users ==

I saw your insightful comment. Who are the three longest basic rights users?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure, as I just saw the comment on CPalmer's userpage and was pointing out had been rewarded his well-deserved privileges and that comment no longer rang true. Although I can look at the logs of User rights and user creation and find out. Thanks for asking.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:31, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:It appears User:WesleyS was also a long-basic user, but he has been given his well-deserved privileges as well. I think that the other editors that CPalmer were referring to may be inactive as I believe all of the longest-standing active editors seem to have earned privileges.
:Also, unrelated to my comment, have you processed mine and User:HP's requests yet? If not, that's fine.
:Thanks for your interest in my comment!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, James, I had blocking privileges in 2009 before having retired. I do appreciate them being reinstated (and adding SkipCaptcha), though! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:53, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Is that the case? I see.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:57, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::The three I was counting who had been here longer than me were [[User:FOIA]], [[User:Able806]] and [[User:LowKey]]. But I see that FOIA does have some extra rights now.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for clarifying.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:05, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Actually I now notice that [[User:Sid 3050]] has been around longer than me as well. I think he (or she?) may have been blocked when I was looking before.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:07, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Thanks, I added some privileges. I wonder what happened to [[User:Able806]]. I'll plan on granting him extra privileges when he returns.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Who else should receive "SkipCatcha" privileges?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Did user:JimJast get them yet? He seems to be doing much good work in the physics articles.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion - extra privileges granted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'm certain he'll appreciate it. Looking at Recent Changes, User:PatternOfPersona also should be granted SkipCaptcha. This editor also seems to have done a good amount of work.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I completely forgot DavidE!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:34, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

==Userboxes==
Thought I would create a template for you to display your userboxes on your page in an organized manner [http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:JamesWilson/userboxes]. Just trap "JamesWilson/userboxes" within double-{{, followed with "|}" at the end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! It is much appreciated.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks again... ==

...for the great work you do catching and reverting vandals. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:44, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Ben! I try, anyway.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:46, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

== These vandals ==

They really are relentless, aren't they? You'd think they have something better to waste their time on...--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 14:29, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes indeed they certainly are.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:30, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
::They aren't very good at it though. Atleast they are just doing vandalism and not more malicious actions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 14:32, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes. But it is a bit of a pain to revert all those pages.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:34, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Haha, thanks for updating the counter I guess.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 18:47, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

I tried to block him before any damage was done. Guess I wasn't fast enough! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 18:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh well. What can you do? It's just that guy messing with the vandal counts again.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:16, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== Great block and revert ==

Great block and revert!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! I would have reverted the rest of them, but my wi fi went down for a bit.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 15:33, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:: You're pretty quick with the blocks...nice[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 07:27, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:JamesWilson/ArchiveAugust2011

2011-08-24T11:27:03Z

Aortuso: /* Great block and revert */

Melbourne

2011-08-24T11:23:49Z

Aortuso:

''' Melbourne''' is [[Australia]]'s second largest city, and the capital of the state of [[Victoria]]. Melbourne is the collective name for the City of Melbourne and greater suburban area, and is home to 4 million people.
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|A Melbourne tram.]]
The City of Melbourne is located on the banks of the [[Yarra River]] and is renowned for its parks and gardens. The Victorian state parliament is located in the inner city. The Greater Melbourne area has an extensive system of street [[tram]]s and suburban [[railway]] lines.

The Greater Melbourne area surrounds Port Phillip Bay. Due to a rapid increase in population and a consequent increase in land and house values, the metropolitan area now extends almost to the tip of the Mornington Peninsula and the City of [[Geelong]].

Melbourne is famous for being the home of the Australian Football League, or AFL, and for its large [[Greece|Greek]] community.

As a major city of Australia, Melbourne is considered the sporting and cultural capital of the country. Melbourne hosts the Australian Open each year in January and has extensive sporting facilities, including the renowned Melbourne Cricket Ground. Melbourne also has many art galleries, such as the National Gallery of Victoria. Each year, Melbourne also hosts the internationally recognized Melbourne Comedy Festival in April.

==History==
In 1835, English explorer John Batman discovered the area that would later become the north and central areas of Melbourne. Batman purchased the land from the local population, although as settlements expanded in Australia, the area was eventually purchased by English government, although the residents and town were allowed to remain in the area.

==Economy==
Industrial development and the rise of manufacturing caused the population to shift gradually from rural areas to cities during the early 1920s<ref>Goodman, R. (1999). "Industrialisation in Australia". Prenwell Press</ref>. In addition, farming remained prevalent. The economy was hard-hit by the [[Great Depression]], resulting in lower prices for farmers, layoffs among iron miners, and industrial unrest. Compounding the adversity, the Northern region were hit by a severe drought. The [[Civilian Conservation Corps]] and other programs around the state established some jobs for Indians on their reservations, and the [[Indian Reorganization Act]] of 1934 provided the tribes with a mechanism of self-government. This measures assisted the Indigenous population, giving them a greater voice within the state, and promoted more respect for tribal customs because religious ceremonies and [[native language]]s were no longer suppressed.

Today, Melbourne is home to the largest port in Australia, which provides substantial income for the city and state.

== Transport ==
Melbourne has a reasonably extensive [[freeway]] network, as well as a large suburban railway system, and one of the largest tram systems in the world.

Earlier freeways radiated out from the fringes of the inner city, but in more recent times a freeway has been built connecting three of these radial freeways through the inner city, and a ring road has been constructed around the outer suburbs to the west and north.
A freeway running north-south through the eastern suburbs is currently (2007) under construction.
The inner city connecting freeway and the north-south freeway under construction are both electronically [[toll]]ed.

The railway system is broad gauge (5' 3") and electrified at 1500 volts D.C. on overhead wires.
It is a radial system based on the inner city, with [[underground]] lines around the central business district, allowing services from most lines to serve all the CBD's five [[station]]s.
Services operate seven days a week, from around 5 a.m. to midnight on most days, and generally with 15 or 20-minute frequencies in off-peak times, and more frequently in peak times.

Melbourne's tram system is standard gauge (4' 8½") and electrified at 600 volts D.C. on overhead wires.
Although it is mostly a radial system, there are several cross-suburban lines.

Melbourne's public transport (suburban railway, tram system, and buses) are privately operated under contract to the State Government and share a common time-based fare and ticketing system.

A feature of Melbourne's tram system is that some of the trams have been converted to operating restaurants that take diners on a tour of the city.

== Facts about Melbourne ==
* Rock music is especially popular in Melbourne, leading to one alley in the city to be officially renamed AC/DC Lane. Many of the alleyways in Melbourne are covered with rock music posters or graffiti related to that music genre.
* Melbourne was the temporary capital of Australia from Federation in 1901 to the transfer of the government to [[Canberra]] in 1927.<ref name="MelbOrg" /><ref>[http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/capital/v.htm Melbourne, Victoria] (Australian Government, Geoscience Australia)</ref>
* Melbourne's Greek community is reputed to be the second largest in the world.<ref name="MelbOrg">[http://www.melbourneaustralia.org/melbourne.html Melbourne, Victoria, Australia], Melbourne Travel Guide.</ref>
* Melbourne's Italian community is reputed to be the largest outside [[Italy]].<ref name="MelbOrg" />
* Melbourne's tram system is the largest in an English-speaking country, the largest in the southern hemisphere, and one of the largest in the world.
* Melbourne was the site of the 1956 [[Olympic Games]] and the 2006 [[Commonwealth Games]].
* Melbourne was portrayed in the 1959 [[Stanley Kramer]] movie ''On the Beach'' (starring [[Ava Gardner]]) as the last pocket of civilisation following a global nuclear war. Written by English/Australian Nevil Shute.<ref>[http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/ On the Beach] (Internet Movie Database)</ref>
* Melbourne is the most southerly city in the world with a population of over 1,000,000 people.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108743/Melbourne#361049.hook Melbourne] Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>
*It is also home to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix.
*Melbourne is pronounced as "Mel-ben".

==See also==
*[[Melbourne Australia Temple]]

==For further reading==
* [http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ City of Melbourne official site]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Australian Cities and Towns]]

Melbourne

2011-08-24T11:23:03Z

Aortuso: More info

''' Melbourne''' is [[Australia]]'s second largest city, and the capital of the state of [[Victoria]]. Melbourne is the collective name for the City of Melbourne and greater suburban area, and is home to 4 million people.
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|A Melbourne tram.]]
The City of Melbourne is located on the banks of the [[Yarra River]] and is renowned for its parks and gardens. The Victorian state parliament is located in the inner city. The Greater Melbourne area has an extensive system of street [[tram]]s and suburban [[railway]] lines.

The Greater Melbourne area surrounds Port Phillip Bay. Due to a rapid increase in population and a consequent increase in land and house values, the metropolitan area now extends almost to the tip of the Mornington Peninsula and the City of [[Geelong]].

Melbourne is famous for being the home of the Australian Football League, or AFL, and for its large [[Greece|Greek]] community.

As a major city of Australia, Melbourne is considered the sporting and cultural capital of the country. Melbourne hosts the Australian Open each year in January and has extensive sporting facilities, including the renowned Melbourne Cricket Ground. Melbourne also has many art galleries, such as the National Gallery of Victoria. Each year, Melbourne also hosts the internationally recognized Melbourne Comedy Festival in April.

==History==
In 1835, English explorer John Batman discovered the area that would later become the north and central areas of Melbourne. Batman purchased the land from the local population, although as settlements expanded in Australia, the area was eventually purchased by English government, although the residents and town were allowed to remain in the area.

==Economy==
Industrial development and the rise of manufacturing caused the population to shift gradually from rural areas to cities during the early 1920s<ref>Goodman, R. (1999). "Industrialisation in Australia". Prenwell Press</ref>. In addition, farming remained prevalent. The economy was hard-hit by the [[Great Depression]], resulting in lower prices for farmers, layoffs among iron miners, and industrial unrest. Compounding the adversity, the Northern region were hit by a severe drought. The [[Civilian Conservation Corps]] and other programs around the state established some jobs for Indians on their reservations, and the [[Indian Reorganization Act]] of 1934 provided the tribes with a mechanism of self-government. This measures assisted the Indigenous population, giving them a greater voice within the state, and promoted more respect for tribal customs because religious ceremonies and [[native language]]s were no longer suppressed.

Today, Melbourne is home to the largest port in Australia, which provides substantial income for the city and state.

== Transport ==
Melbourne has a reasonably extensive [[freeway]] network, as well as a large suburban railway system, and one of the largest tram systems in the world.

Earlier freeways radiated out from the fringes of the inner city, but in more recent times a freeway has been built connecting three of these radial freeways through the inner city, and a ring road has been constructed around the outer suburbs to the west and north.
A freeway running north-south through the eastern suburbs is currently (2007) under construction.
The inner city connecting freeway and the north-south freeway under construction are both electronically [[toll]]ed.

The railway system is broad gauge (5' 3") and electrified at 1500 volts D.C. on overhead wires.
It is a radial system based on the inner city, with [[underground]] lines around the central business district, allowing services from most lines to serve all the CBD's five [[station]]s.
Services operate seven days a week, from around 5 a.m. to midnight on most days, and generally with 15 or 20-minute frequencies in off-peak times, and more frequently in peak times.

Melbourne's tram system is standard gauge (4' 8½") and electrified at 600 volts D.C. on overhead wires.
Although it is mostly a radial system, there are several cross-suburban lines.

Melbourne's public transport (suburban railway, tram system, and buses) are privately operated under contract to the State Government and share a common time-based fare and ticketing system.

A feature of Melbourne's tram system is that some of the trams have been converted to operating restaurants that take diners on a tour of the city.

== Facts about Melbourne ==
* Rock music is especially popular in Melbourne, leading to one alley in the city to be officially renamed AC/DC Lane. Many of the alleyways in Melbourne are covered with rock music posters or graffiti related to that music genre.
* Melbourne was the temporary capital of Australia from Federation in 1901 to the transfer of the government to [[Canberra]] in 1927.<ref name="MelbOrg" /><ref>[http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/capital/v.htm Melbourne, Victoria] (Australian Government, Geoscience Australia)</ref>
* Melbourne's Greek community is reputed to be the second largest in the world.<ref name="MelbOrg">[http://www.melbourneaustralia.org/melbourne.html Melbourne, Victoria, Australia], Melbourne Travel Guide.</ref>
* Melbourne's Italian community is reputed to be the largest outside [[Italy]].<ref name="MelbOrg" />
* Melbourne's tram system is the largest in an English-speaking country, the largest in the southern hemisphere, and one of the largest in the world.
* Melbourne was the site of the 1956 [[Olympic Games]] and the 2006 [[Commonwealth Games]].
* Melbourne was portrayed in the 1959 [[Stanley Kramer]] movie ''On the Beach'' (starring [[Ava Gardner]]) as the last pocket of civilisation following a global nuclear war Written by English/Australian Nevil Shute.<ref>[http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/ On the Beach] (Internet Movie Database)</ref>
* Melbourne is the most southerly city in the world with a population of over 1,000,000 people.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108743/Melbourne#361049.hook Melbourne] Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>
*It is also home to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix.
*Melbourne is pronounced as "Mel-ben".

==See also==
*[[Melbourne Australia Temple]]

==For further reading==
* [http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ City of Melbourne official site]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Australian Cities and Towns]]

Melbourne

2011-08-24T11:19:32Z

Aortuso:

''' Melbourne''' is [[Australia]]'s second largest city, and the capital of the state of [[Victoria]]. Melbourne is the collective name for the City of Melbourne and greater suburban area, and is home to 4 million people.
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|A Melbourne tram.]]
The City of Melbourne is located on the banks of the [[Yarra River]] and is renowned for its parks and gardens. The Victorian state parliament is located in the inner city. The Greater Melbourne area has an extensive system of street [[tram]]s and suburban [[railway]] lines.

The Greater Melbourne area surrounds Port Phillip Bay. Due to a rapid increase in population and a consequent increase in land and house values, the metropolitan area now extends almost to the tip of the Mornington Peninsula and the City of [[Geelong]].

Melbourne is famous for being the home of the Australian Football League, or AFL, and for its large [[Greece|Greek]] community.

As a major city of Australia, Melbourne is considered the sporting and cultural capital of the country. Melbourne hosts the Australian Open each year in January and has extensive sporting facilities, including the renowned Melbourne Cricket Ground. Melbourne also has many art galleries, such as the National Gallery of Victoria. Each year, Melbourne also hosts the internationally recognized Melbourne Comedy Festival in April.

==History==
In 1835, English explorer John Batman discovered the area that would later become the north and central areas of Melbourne. Batman purchased the land from the local population, although as settlements expanded in Australia, the area was eventually purchased by English government, although the residents and town were allowed to remain in the area.

==Economy==
Industrial development and the rise of manufacturing caused the population to shift gradually from rural areas to cities during the early 1920s<ref>Goodman, R. (1999). "Industrialisation in Australia". Prenwell Press</ref>. In addition, farming remained prevalent. The economy was hard-hit by the [[Great Depression]], resulting in lower prices for farmers, layoffs among iron miners, and industrial unrest. Compounding the adversity, the Northern region were hit by a severe drought. The [[Civilian Conservation Corps]] and other programs around the state established some jobs for Indians on their reservations, and the [[Indian Reorganization Act]] of 1934 provided the tribes with a mechanism of self-government. This measures assisted the Indigenous population, giving them a greater voice within the state, and promoted more respect for tribal customs because religious ceremonies and [[native language]]s were no longer suppressed.

Today, Melbourne is home to the largest port in Australia, which provides substantial income for the city and state.

== Transport ==
Melbourne has a reasonably extensive [[freeway]] network, as well as a large suburban railway system, and one of the largest tram systems in the world.

Earlier freeways radiated out from the fringes of the inner city, but in more recent times a freeway has been built connecting three of these radial freeways through the inner city, and a ring road has been constructed around the outer suburbs to the west and north.
A freeway running north-south through the eastern suburbs is currently (2007) under construction.
The inner city connecting freeway and the north-south freeway under construction are both electronically [[toll]]ed.

The railway system is broad gauge (5' 3") and electrified at 1500 volts D.C. on overhead wires.
It is a radial system based on the inner city, with [[underground]] lines around the central business district, allowing services from most lines to serve all the CBD's five [[station]]s.
Services operate seven days a week, from around 5 a.m. to midnight on most days, and generally with 15 or 20-minute frequencies in off-peak times, and more frequently in peak times.

Melbourne's tram system is standard gauge (4' 8½") and electrified at 600 volts D.C. on overhead wires.
Although it is mostly a radial system, there are several cross-suburban lines.

Melbourne's public transport (suburban railway, tram system, and buses) are privately operated under contract to the State Government and share a common time-based fare and ticketing system.

A feature of Melbourne's tram system is that some of the trams have been converted to operating restaurants that take diners on a tour of the city.

== Facts about Melbourne ==
* Rock music is especially popular in Melbourne, leading to one alley in the city to be officially renamed AC/DC Lane. Many of the alleyways in Melbourne are covered with rock music posters or graffiti related to that music genre.
* Melbourne was the temporary capital of Australia from Federation in 1901 to the transfer of the government to [[Canberra]] in 1927.<ref name="MelbOrg" /><ref>[http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/capital/v.htm Melbourne, Victoria] (Australian Government, Geoscience Australia)</ref>
* Melbourne's Greek community is reputed to be the second largest in the world.<ref name="MelbOrg">[http://www.melbourneaustralia.org/melbourne.html Melbourne, Victoria, Australia], Melbourne Travel Guide.</ref>
* Melbourne's Italian community is reputed to be the largest outside [[Italy]].<ref name="MelbOrg" />
* Melbourne's tram system is the largest in an English-speaking country, the largest in the southern hemisphere, and one of the largest in the world.
* Melbourne was the site of the 1956 [[Olympic Games]] and the 2006 [[Commonwealth Games]].
* Melbourne was portrayed in the 1959 [[Stanley Kramer]] movie ''On the Beach'' (starring [[Ava Gardner]]) as the last pocket of civilisation following a global nuclear war.<ref>[http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/ On the Beach] (Internet Movie Database)</ref>
* Melbourne is the most southerly city in the world with a population of over 1,000,000 people.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108743/Melbourne#361049.hook Melbourne] Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>
*It is also home to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix.
*Melbourne is pronounced as "Mel-ben".

==See also==
*[[Melbourne Australia Temple]]

==For further reading==
* [http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ City of Melbourne official site]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Australian Cities and Towns]]

Sailing

2011-08-17T02:25:26Z

Aortuso:

'''Sailing''' is the art of controlling a vessel controlled by [[sail]]s. This is performed by adjusting the rigging and rudder of a vessel, so you can harness the power of the [[wind]]. Sailboats are one of the oldest types of seafaring vessels, and remain one of the most common types. 
Nowadays sailing is mostly used for sporting and recreational purposes and not for travelling and transporting goods for long distances (e.g. merchant ships).

==External Links==
*[http://www.macsailing.org/PDFs/manuallarge.pdf Learn to Sail]
*[http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/sailing.html The Physics of Sailing]

[[Category:Sailing]]

Talk:Grand Canyon National Park

2011-08-14T03:47:00Z

Aortuso:

I don't understand the point of these article stubs that do nothing more then tell us that the world was created by god. We already know that, now let's have some real facts. Until this site starts to have actual information about things it will be useless as a source of information

Bill M just removed some facts, so I am putting them back. Why the change? Is something not correct? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== geology is NOT evolution! ==

How many times are we going to see this? Evolution refers to a BIOLOGICAL theory about the ascent (or descent if you prefer) of species of life. Today, it is generally understood as referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as neo-Darwinism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theories or concepts of Geology and Geography, that is, to do with stones, earth, erosion, canyons, oceans, mountains, and suchlike. No geologist believes that Planet Earth "evolved", because Earth is not a living thing, and geological formations, like mountains, seas, etc do not reproduce and therefore are not subject to natural selection pressures the way living things are.

It would be quite possible for a geologist to be an old-world creationist, so obviously, one can hold that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and was formed primarily by erosion, without being an "evolutionist". Can we get that straight once and for all?
[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:As far as the definition of "evolution" is concerned, see [[Definitions of evolution]], where you will see that it ''can'' be used to refer to things other than biological evolution. (To paraphrase, how many times are we going to see this denial that evolution can mean something other than biological evolution?) However, that may not apply so much for "evolutionist", and just because one wording is correct doesn't mean that it's the ''best'' wording, so I agree in this case and have changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation ==

I don't know if I am the first person to suggest this, but in the interest of impartial scientific inquiry, I would like to propose a small scientific experiment to test the two theories of how the Grand Canyon formed. These theories, very briefly alluded to in the article, are as follows.

1. Secular geological theory. Rocks of Grand Canyon are around 2 billion years old. Earth is slowly being lifted in region. River carries small sandy sediment, and this acts as tiny abraders. Over a period of 6 million years, river has cut out Canyon via very gradual erosion, spoonfuls of stuff per day.

2. Biblical Geological theory. Earth created about 6 thousand years ago. When God drowned world on account of human sinfulness about 4,500 years ago in a massive but brief flood, Grand Canyon was created via torrents of water carrying boulders the size of dump trucks which smashed and gouged millions of tons of rubble out of what is now the Canyon, in a matter of days.

Now an experiment to test the predictive power of the two ideas. First build two small water courses, using simple hoses and gentle paths down which the water can flow. The two setups should be as alike one another as possible. They need be only about say 40 feet long and 3 feet across. These are rivers in miniature. Now we allow one river to carry small amounts of sand and silt and we measure the erosion rate after a year. With the other “river”, we get a powerful fire hose, and give it a 30 second blast, powerful enough to send house bricks flying down the torrent. Now, we compare the after-effects. Which one more closely resembles the Grand Canyon? Do the two effects, one very brief and violent, the other long and subtle, REALLY produce effects that could be mistaken one for another? Well, what concerns me is that the YEC crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that Biblical accounts can be proved. Well here’s your chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

Let me give you a clue. Let us suppose a recipe said “Simmer on low heat for two hours”, and Holy Joe decided to save time and nuked it for 1 second at 1000 degrees, on the grounds that the higher heat should be compensated for by the shorter time, so that you will get your mouth-watering stew after only a second instead of waiting for a whole two hours. Now, Holy Joe takes off the lid of the saucepan, and a pall of black smoke emanates. Imagine his surprise when he looks down and sees a toffee-like mass of burning gunk! Well! Holy Joe was certainly surprised, but are we, my fellow scientists? So, while I will not pre-empt a verdict on the two water courses experiment, I should nevertheless warn you that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time, MIGHT just not come the SAME THING as putting 40000 gallons down there for 30 seconds. Nevertheless, I am sure that “Creation Science” being a well-endowed body, and ever so sincerely interested in “science” will provide the small funding necessary to set up this experiment and then pursue this line of enquiry with enthusiasm and honesty.[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:What biased tripe!

:Okay, now that I've put you off-side ( :-) ), I'll add that the experiment itself is probably a fair idea (although I think the test area might be a bit undersized for a fire hose).

:No, my concern is that you are trying to put the onus on creationists for this. To paraphrase your comments, what concerns me is that the secular crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that their secular accounts can be proved. (In contrast, by the way, to the YECs who do ''not'' claim that their ideas can be proved. Rather, they point out the impossibility of scientifically observing and testing unique historical events, and argue that the evidence is ''more consistent with'' the Biblical account, not that they can ''prove'' the biblical account.) You also have the chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

:I'd agree that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time might not have the same results of a lot of water very quickly. But your presumption that the small amount over a long time can produce the results that we see is not supported by any observations or experiments.

:Furthermore, your inference that "Creation Science" is "well endowed" is laughable. It's secular geology, not flood geology, that gets government grants and other funding for research. Compared to secular ideas, creationist ideas get a drop in the Grand Canyon, to coin a phrase.

:However, that's not the end of it. Although I know of no such experiments, I do know of ''observations'' that support the YEC position. See for example [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/421 this example] of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658 Engineer's Canyon], one fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon, formed in one day. Now please point me to ''observations'' of canyons forming over millions of years.

:Can't, can you?

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's kind of funny, I was reading about the Grand Canyon here on conservapedia, and had the same idea for an experiment. I don't have the time or money or space to do it, however. I did search the Institute for Creation Science's website, but didn't find any papers about an actual experiment, just papers on the problems with radioisotope dating rocks in the Grand Canyon or what have you. Now, to clear up a couple misconceptions about science. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a giant flood, the burden of proof is on you. That's just how science works. Secular geologists don't have run around disproving every hypothesis you put forward. (I was really hoping I would find that the Institute for Creation Research would of done an experiment similar to this) Also, science doesn't prove anything. Science can't prove anything. Again, that just isn't how science works.

::Anyways, in the article you provided about the Burlingame Canyon, it says that it was carved out of "rather soft sand and clay". In the article about Engineer's Canyon it says it was carved out of "earlier pyroclastic deposits", in other words, soft volcanic ash. But, the Grand Canyon was largely carved out of much stronger sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone. So, the two events just aren't comparable to the formation of the Grand Canyon because their compositions are so radically different. If you can find a canyon that was carved out of solid rock approximating that of the Grand Canyon, in a relatively short amount of time and with conditions approximating the flood (even if on a much smaller scale), you would be going a long way in showing that the Grand Canyon could of been formed in a global, catastrophic flood. Until then, I'm just going to have to remain unconvinced.

::[[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:14, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::You're absolutely correct...science can't prove anything. Like the belief that the Grand Canyon or anything else on earth was formed over the course of billions of years. As to the Great Flood doing it, here's the experiment you can perform at home: take multiple buckets of different kinds of earth, wet them down, and throw them on top of each other; sink the whole under water for a time; then raise it and run a garden hose through the center, pretending it's drainage from the flood waters. Let dry. You're little thingy in the back yard is going to look an awful like a canyon. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I don't doubt that you could form a canyon out of soft, wet earth relatively quickly. What I do doubt is that you can form a canyon out of hard rock (such as that found in the Grand Canyon) relatively quickly. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::And who ''says'' the rock was hard when the water drained away? Every layer of rock seen on both sides of that canyon was laid down by water, and it certainly was not rock when it was laid down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying the flood carved the Grand Canyon out of hard rock that already existed in the area by softening it? Or that the flood deposited around a mile of sediments in the area, and then carved the Grand Canyon out of that and then those sediments hardened? Or something else? Can you be more specific about the timeline of events that happened to form the Grand Canyon? [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 14:28, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I think you better read ''again'' what I said above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I have, and I'm not trolling or anything, but I honestly can't imagine how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon and create all the observed phenomena (stratified rock, U-turns, sheer cliff faces, etc). Maybe there should be a section in the article about how the Grand Canyon was formed? Because I don't think I've read about the exact process from a creationist viewpoint before, and creationists do bring the Grand Canyon up a lot, so, I think it would be important. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 08:34, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

== What? ==

The theory of creationism doesn't necessarily ride on the great flood creating the Grand Canyon and other geographical features. Why harm your credibility by making such ludicrous claims? Do you realize the amount of force that would be required to form the Grand Canyon all at once?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 11:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You mean, like God? God is a lot of force. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::And do you realize how unstable the Grand Canyon would be if it happened all at once like this article claims? And the area around it? All of the evidence points to a gradual formation due to erosion. The only evidence this article uses to support its theory seem to be the questions of somebody who doesn't know very much about the subject. No hard data. Just questions. Again, why harm the credibility of creationism by making these claims?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 15:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Going by what the Bible says hardly hurts the claims of creationists. It only strengthens them. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 15:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::The Bible says that the flood formed the Grand Canyon? Where? Even if it does though, if it were true there would be evidence of it, which there isn't. So if it really does say that i guess it hurts the Bible's credibility--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 20:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The Grand Canyon is obviously a hole in the ground punched out by the immense pressure of water, like an ocean basin. The canyon's shape is nothing like the winding shape of the Colorado River that [[evolutionists]] pretend carved it over an absurd number of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Do you really think the river has been the same shape for an "absurd number of years"? It doesn't take very long at all for a river to change course, and over the course of many many years it can very easily shape the Grand Canyon. Do you realize the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause to the entire earth?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 14:09, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::'the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause' - perhaps the exact amount we see in the Grand Canyon? What else is the huge hole in the ground but damage? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Courses of rivers may change from time to time, but their shapes never correspond to the shape of the Grand Canyon. But ocean basins do. Does the evidence matter, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::@JCW, there would be far more than a hole in the ground if that amount of force was "punched" into the earth. The meteor that killed off the dinosaurs had drastic global effects, and even it did not have the amount to force necessary to create a canyon of that size.

::::::::@Aschlafly, where did you get this "evidence" that the rivers have never corresponded to the shape of the Grand Canyon? The river moved all over the area, slowly eroding it away piece by piece. Nobody is claiming that it was eroded by a river the exact shape that it is now.--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Jab512, the evidence is that of an ocean basin. That's the starting point for any objective analysis. No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin; but many have been formed by being submerged completely in water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::How is that the starting point for any objective analysis? There is no conclusion in a starting point of an objective analysis. That's why it's objective. But i digress."''No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin''" and you know this how? Please provide evidence to back up this statement. You say the GC is consistent in shape with an ocean basin? How do you think those are formed? Wouldn't happen to be erosion over time would it?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: No, the [[Grand Canyon]] is not the shape of a slowly eroded valley. It's the shape of a suddenly collapsed ocean floor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
What other "suddenly collapsed ocean floor" are you comparing it to? How can you say that it is the same shape as something that has never happened before this instance, if that really was how it was formed? --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 22:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are many examples of "ocean basin" explained on the internet ... and ocean basins look like the [[Grand Canyon]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::The Mariana Trench would be a good example.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:23, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Any ocean basins created by a massive force all at once? Unless the great flood covered the Grand Canyon for thousands of years and eroded it away any comparisons to ocean basins are irrelevant, as that is how they are formed as well. And the Mariana Trench is where two tectonic plates meet, not the product of a massive force or erosion, therefore the comparison is also irrelevant. Not that it was really that similar in shape anyways--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:37, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: You are right, it was a poor example. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:40, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah, now i feel bad for the snarky comment i made at the end of my last post :(. Sorry
::::::Ha, don't worry, I made an error and you pointed it out. No harm done.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Grand Canyon National Park

2011-08-14T03:40:21Z

Aortuso:

I don't understand the point of these article stubs that do nothing more then tell us that the world was created by god. We already know that, now let's have some real facts. Until this site starts to have actual information about things it will be useless as a source of information

Bill M just removed some facts, so I am putting them back. Why the change? Is something not correct? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== geology is NOT evolution! ==

How many times are we going to see this? Evolution refers to a BIOLOGICAL theory about the ascent (or descent if you prefer) of species of life. Today, it is generally understood as referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as neo-Darwinism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theories or concepts of Geology and Geography, that is, to do with stones, earth, erosion, canyons, oceans, mountains, and suchlike. No geologist believes that Planet Earth "evolved", because Earth is not a living thing, and geological formations, like mountains, seas, etc do not reproduce and therefore are not subject to natural selection pressures the way living things are.

It would be quite possible for a geologist to be an old-world creationist, so obviously, one can hold that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and was formed primarily by erosion, without being an "evolutionist". Can we get that straight once and for all?
[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:As far as the definition of "evolution" is concerned, see [[Definitions of evolution]], where you will see that it ''can'' be used to refer to things other than biological evolution. (To paraphrase, how many times are we going to see this denial that evolution can mean something other than biological evolution?) However, that may not apply so much for "evolutionist", and just because one wording is correct doesn't mean that it's the ''best'' wording, so I agree in this case and have changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation ==

I don't know if I am the first person to suggest this, but in the interest of impartial scientific inquiry, I would like to propose a small scientific experiment to test the two theories of how the Grand Canyon formed. These theories, very briefly alluded to in the article, are as follows.

1. Secular geological theory. Rocks of Grand Canyon are around 2 billion years old. Earth is slowly being lifted in region. River carries small sandy sediment, and this acts as tiny abraders. Over a period of 6 million years, river has cut out Canyon via very gradual erosion, spoonfuls of stuff per day.

2. Biblical Geological theory. Earth created about 6 thousand years ago. When God drowned world on account of human sinfulness about 4,500 years ago in a massive but brief flood, Grand Canyon was created via torrents of water carrying boulders the size of dump trucks which smashed and gouged millions of tons of rubble out of what is now the Canyon, in a matter of days.

Now an experiment to test the predictive power of the two ideas. First build two small water courses, using simple hoses and gentle paths down which the water can flow. The two setups should be as alike one another as possible. They need be only about say 40 feet long and 3 feet across. These are rivers in miniature. Now we allow one river to carry small amounts of sand and silt and we measure the erosion rate after a year. With the other “river”, we get a powerful fire hose, and give it a 30 second blast, powerful enough to send house bricks flying down the torrent. Now, we compare the after-effects. Which one more closely resembles the Grand Canyon? Do the two effects, one very brief and violent, the other long and subtle, REALLY produce effects that could be mistaken one for another? Well, what concerns me is that the YEC crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that Biblical accounts can be proved. Well here’s your chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

Let me give you a clue. Let us suppose a recipe said “Simmer on low heat for two hours”, and Holy Joe decided to save time and nuked it for 1 second at 1000 degrees, on the grounds that the higher heat should be compensated for by the shorter time, so that you will get your mouth-watering stew after only a second instead of waiting for a whole two hours. Now, Holy Joe takes off the lid of the saucepan, and a pall of black smoke emanates. Imagine his surprise when he looks down and sees a toffee-like mass of burning gunk! Well! Holy Joe was certainly surprised, but are we, my fellow scientists? So, while I will not pre-empt a verdict on the two water courses experiment, I should nevertheless warn you that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time, MIGHT just not come the SAME THING as putting 40000 gallons down there for 30 seconds. Nevertheless, I am sure that “Creation Science” being a well-endowed body, and ever so sincerely interested in “science” will provide the small funding necessary to set up this experiment and then pursue this line of enquiry with enthusiasm and honesty.[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:What biased tripe!

:Okay, now that I've put you off-side ( :-) ), I'll add that the experiment itself is probably a fair idea (although I think the test area might be a bit undersized for a fire hose).

:No, my concern is that you are trying to put the onus on creationists for this. To paraphrase your comments, what concerns me is that the secular crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that their secular accounts can be proved. (In contrast, by the way, to the YECs who do ''not'' claim that their ideas can be proved. Rather, they point out the impossibility of scientifically observing and testing unique historical events, and argue that the evidence is ''more consistent with'' the Biblical account, not that they can ''prove'' the biblical account.) You also have the chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

:I'd agree that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time might not have the same results of a lot of water very quickly. But your presumption that the small amount over a long time can produce the results that we see is not supported by any observations or experiments.

:Furthermore, your inference that "Creation Science" is "well endowed" is laughable. It's secular geology, not flood geology, that gets government grants and other funding for research. Compared to secular ideas, creationist ideas get a drop in the Grand Canyon, to coin a phrase.

:However, that's not the end of it. Although I know of no such experiments, I do know of ''observations'' that support the YEC position. See for example [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/421 this example] of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658 Engineer's Canyon], one fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon, formed in one day. Now please point me to ''observations'' of canyons forming over millions of years.

:Can't, can you?

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's kind of funny, I was reading about the Grand Canyon here on conservapedia, and had the same idea for an experiment. I don't have the time or money or space to do it, however. I did search the Institute for Creation Science's website, but didn't find any papers about an actual experiment, just papers on the problems with radioisotope dating rocks in the Grand Canyon or what have you. Now, to clear up a couple misconceptions about science. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a giant flood, the burden of proof is on you. That's just how science works. Secular geologists don't have run around disproving every hypothesis you put forward. (I was really hoping I would find that the Institute for Creation Research would of done an experiment similar to this) Also, science doesn't prove anything. Science can't prove anything. Again, that just isn't how science works.

::Anyways, in the article you provided about the Burlingame Canyon, it says that it was carved out of "rather soft sand and clay". In the article about Engineer's Canyon it says it was carved out of "earlier pyroclastic deposits", in other words, soft volcanic ash. But, the Grand Canyon was largely carved out of much stronger sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone. So, the two events just aren't comparable to the formation of the Grand Canyon because their compositions are so radically different. If you can find a canyon that was carved out of solid rock approximating that of the Grand Canyon, in a relatively short amount of time and with conditions approximating the flood (even if on a much smaller scale), you would be going a long way in showing that the Grand Canyon could of been formed in a global, catastrophic flood. Until then, I'm just going to have to remain unconvinced.

::[[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:14, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::You're absolutely correct...science can't prove anything. Like the belief that the Grand Canyon or anything else on earth was formed over the course of billions of years. As to the Great Flood doing it, here's the experiment you can perform at home: take multiple buckets of different kinds of earth, wet them down, and throw them on top of each other; sink the whole under water for a time; then raise it and run a garden hose through the center, pretending it's drainage from the flood waters. Let dry. You're little thingy in the back yard is going to look an awful like a canyon. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I don't doubt that you could form a canyon out of soft, wet earth relatively quickly. What I do doubt is that you can form a canyon out of hard rock (such as that found in the Grand Canyon) relatively quickly. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::And who ''says'' the rock was hard when the water drained away? Every layer of rock seen on both sides of that canyon was laid down by water, and it certainly was not rock when it was laid down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying the flood carved the Grand Canyon out of hard rock that already existed in the area by softening it? Or that the flood deposited around a mile of sediments in the area, and then carved the Grand Canyon out of that and then those sediments hardened? Or something else? Can you be more specific about the timeline of events that happened to form the Grand Canyon? [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 14:28, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I think you better read ''again'' what I said above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I have, and I'm not trolling or anything, but I honestly can't imagine how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon and create all the observed phenomena (stratified rock, U-turns, sheer cliff faces, etc). Maybe there should be a section in the article about how the Grand Canyon was formed? Because I don't think I've read about the exact process from a creationist viewpoint before, and creationists do bring the Grand Canyon up a lot, so, I think it would be important. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 08:34, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

== What? ==

The theory of creationism doesn't necessarily ride on the great flood creating the Grand Canyon and other geographical features. Why harm your credibility by making such ludicrous claims? Do you realize the amount of force that would be required to form the Grand Canyon all at once?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 11:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You mean, like God? God is a lot of force. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::And do you realize how unstable the Grand Canyon would be if it happened all at once like this article claims? And the area around it? All of the evidence points to a gradual formation due to erosion. The only evidence this article uses to support its theory seem to be the questions of somebody who doesn't know very much about the subject. No hard data. Just questions. Again, why harm the credibility of creationism by making these claims?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 15:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Going by what the Bible says hardly hurts the claims of creationists. It only strengthens them. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 15:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::The Bible says that the flood formed the Grand Canyon? Where? Even if it does though, if it were true there would be evidence of it, which there isn't. So if it really does say that i guess it hurts the Bible's credibility--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 20:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The Grand Canyon is obviously a hole in the ground punched out by the immense pressure of water, like an ocean basin. The canyon's shape is nothing like the winding shape of the Colorado River that [[evolutionists]] pretend carved it over an absurd number of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Do you really think the river has been the same shape for an "absurd number of years"? It doesn't take very long at all for a river to change course, and over the course of many many years it can very easily shape the Grand Canyon. Do you realize the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause to the entire earth?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 14:09, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::'the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause' - perhaps the exact amount we see in the Grand Canyon? What else is the huge hole in the ground but damage? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Courses of rivers may change from time to time, but their shapes never correspond to the shape of the Grand Canyon. But ocean basins do. Does the evidence matter, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::@JCW, there would be far more than a hole in the ground if that amount of force was "punched" into the earth. The meteor that killed off the dinosaurs had drastic global effects, and even it did not have the amount to force necessary to create a canyon of that size.

::::::::@Aschlafly, where did you get this "evidence" that the rivers have never corresponded to the shape of the Grand Canyon? The river moved all over the area, slowly eroding it away piece by piece. Nobody is claiming that it was eroded by a river the exact shape that it is now.--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Jab512, the evidence is that of an ocean basin. That's the starting point for any objective analysis. No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin; but many have been formed by being submerged completely in water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::How is that the starting point for any objective analysis? There is no conclusion in a starting point of an objective analysis. That's why it's objective. But i digress."''No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin''" and you know this how? Please provide evidence to back up this statement. You say the GC is consistent in shape with an ocean basin? How do you think those are formed? Wouldn't happen to be erosion over time would it?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: No, the [[Grand Canyon]] is not the shape of a slowly eroded valley. It's the shape of a suddenly collapsed ocean floor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
What other "suddenly collapsed ocean floor" are you comparing it to? How can you say that it is the same shape as something that has never happened before this instance, if that really was how it was formed? --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 22:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are many examples of "ocean basin" explained on the internet ... and ocean basins look like the [[Grand Canyon]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::The Mariana Trench would be a good example.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:23, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Any ocean basins created by a massive force all at once? And the Mariana Trench is where two tectonic plates meet, not the product of a massive force or erosion, therefore the comparison is irrelevant. Not that it was really that similar in shape anyways--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:37, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: You are right, it was a poor example. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:40, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Grand Canyon National Park

2011-08-14T03:23:45Z

Aortuso:

I don't understand the point of these article stubs that do nothing more then tell us that the world was created by god. We already know that, now let's have some real facts. Until this site starts to have actual information about things it will be useless as a source of information

Bill M just removed some facts, so I am putting them back. Why the change? Is something not correct? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== geology is NOT evolution! ==

How many times are we going to see this? Evolution refers to a BIOLOGICAL theory about the ascent (or descent if you prefer) of species of life. Today, it is generally understood as referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as neo-Darwinism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theories or concepts of Geology and Geography, that is, to do with stones, earth, erosion, canyons, oceans, mountains, and suchlike. No geologist believes that Planet Earth "evolved", because Earth is not a living thing, and geological formations, like mountains, seas, etc do not reproduce and therefore are not subject to natural selection pressures the way living things are.

It would be quite possible for a geologist to be an old-world creationist, so obviously, one can hold that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and was formed primarily by erosion, without being an "evolutionist". Can we get that straight once and for all?
[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:As far as the definition of "evolution" is concerned, see [[Definitions of evolution]], where you will see that it ''can'' be used to refer to things other than biological evolution. (To paraphrase, how many times are we going to see this denial that evolution can mean something other than biological evolution?) However, that may not apply so much for "evolutionist", and just because one wording is correct doesn't mean that it's the ''best'' wording, so I agree in this case and have changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation ==

I don't know if I am the first person to suggest this, but in the interest of impartial scientific inquiry, I would like to propose a small scientific experiment to test the two theories of how the Grand Canyon formed. These theories, very briefly alluded to in the article, are as follows.

1. Secular geological theory. Rocks of Grand Canyon are around 2 billion years old. Earth is slowly being lifted in region. River carries small sandy sediment, and this acts as tiny abraders. Over a period of 6 million years, river has cut out Canyon via very gradual erosion, spoonfuls of stuff per day.

2. Biblical Geological theory. Earth created about 6 thousand years ago. When God drowned world on account of human sinfulness about 4,500 years ago in a massive but brief flood, Grand Canyon was created via torrents of water carrying boulders the size of dump trucks which smashed and gouged millions of tons of rubble out of what is now the Canyon, in a matter of days.

Now an experiment to test the predictive power of the two ideas. First build two small water courses, using simple hoses and gentle paths down which the water can flow. The two setups should be as alike one another as possible. They need be only about say 40 feet long and 3 feet across. These are rivers in miniature. Now we allow one river to carry small amounts of sand and silt and we measure the erosion rate after a year. With the other “river”, we get a powerful fire hose, and give it a 30 second blast, powerful enough to send house bricks flying down the torrent. Now, we compare the after-effects. Which one more closely resembles the Grand Canyon? Do the two effects, one very brief and violent, the other long and subtle, REALLY produce effects that could be mistaken one for another? Well, what concerns me is that the YEC crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that Biblical accounts can be proved. Well here’s your chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

Let me give you a clue. Let us suppose a recipe said “Simmer on low heat for two hours”, and Holy Joe decided to save time and nuked it for 1 second at 1000 degrees, on the grounds that the higher heat should be compensated for by the shorter time, so that you will get your mouth-watering stew after only a second instead of waiting for a whole two hours. Now, Holy Joe takes off the lid of the saucepan, and a pall of black smoke emanates. Imagine his surprise when he looks down and sees a toffee-like mass of burning gunk! Well! Holy Joe was certainly surprised, but are we, my fellow scientists? So, while I will not pre-empt a verdict on the two water courses experiment, I should nevertheless warn you that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time, MIGHT just not come the SAME THING as putting 40000 gallons down there for 30 seconds. Nevertheless, I am sure that “Creation Science” being a well-endowed body, and ever so sincerely interested in “science” will provide the small funding necessary to set up this experiment and then pursue this line of enquiry with enthusiasm and honesty.[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:What biased tripe!

:Okay, now that I've put you off-side ( :-) ), I'll add that the experiment itself is probably a fair idea (although I think the test area might be a bit undersized for a fire hose).

:No, my concern is that you are trying to put the onus on creationists for this. To paraphrase your comments, what concerns me is that the secular crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that their secular accounts can be proved. (In contrast, by the way, to the YECs who do ''not'' claim that their ideas can be proved. Rather, they point out the impossibility of scientifically observing and testing unique historical events, and argue that the evidence is ''more consistent with'' the Biblical account, not that they can ''prove'' the biblical account.) You also have the chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

:I'd agree that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time might not have the same results of a lot of water very quickly. But your presumption that the small amount over a long time can produce the results that we see is not supported by any observations or experiments.

:Furthermore, your inference that "Creation Science" is "well endowed" is laughable. It's secular geology, not flood geology, that gets government grants and other funding for research. Compared to secular ideas, creationist ideas get a drop in the Grand Canyon, to coin a phrase.

:However, that's not the end of it. Although I know of no such experiments, I do know of ''observations'' that support the YEC position. See for example [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/421 this example] of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658 Engineer's Canyon], one fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon, formed in one day. Now please point me to ''observations'' of canyons forming over millions of years.

:Can't, can you?

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's kind of funny, I was reading about the Grand Canyon here on conservapedia, and had the same idea for an experiment. I don't have the time or money or space to do it, however. I did search the Institute for Creation Science's website, but didn't find any papers about an actual experiment, just papers on the problems with radioisotope dating rocks in the Grand Canyon or what have you. Now, to clear up a couple misconceptions about science. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a giant flood, the burden of proof is on you. That's just how science works. Secular geologists don't have run around disproving every hypothesis you put forward. (I was really hoping I would find that the Institute for Creation Research would of done an experiment similar to this) Also, science doesn't prove anything. Science can't prove anything. Again, that just isn't how science works.

::Anyways, in the article you provided about the Burlingame Canyon, it says that it was carved out of "rather soft sand and clay". In the article about Engineer's Canyon it says it was carved out of "earlier pyroclastic deposits", in other words, soft volcanic ash. But, the Grand Canyon was largely carved out of much stronger sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone. So, the two events just aren't comparable to the formation of the Grand Canyon because their compositions are so radically different. If you can find a canyon that was carved out of solid rock approximating that of the Grand Canyon, in a relatively short amount of time and with conditions approximating the flood (even if on a much smaller scale), you would be going a long way in showing that the Grand Canyon could of been formed in a global, catastrophic flood. Until then, I'm just going to have to remain unconvinced.

::[[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:14, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::You're absolutely correct...science can't prove anything. Like the belief that the Grand Canyon or anything else on earth was formed over the course of billions of years. As to the Great Flood doing it, here's the experiment you can perform at home: take multiple buckets of different kinds of earth, wet them down, and throw them on top of each other; sink the whole under water for a time; then raise it and run a garden hose through the center, pretending it's drainage from the flood waters. Let dry. You're little thingy in the back yard is going to look an awful like a canyon. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I don't doubt that you could form a canyon out of soft, wet earth relatively quickly. What I do doubt is that you can form a canyon out of hard rock (such as that found in the Grand Canyon) relatively quickly. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::And who ''says'' the rock was hard when the water drained away? Every layer of rock seen on both sides of that canyon was laid down by water, and it certainly was not rock when it was laid down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying the flood carved the Grand Canyon out of hard rock that already existed in the area by softening it? Or that the flood deposited around a mile of sediments in the area, and then carved the Grand Canyon out of that and then those sediments hardened? Or something else? Can you be more specific about the timeline of events that happened to form the Grand Canyon? [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 14:28, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I think you better read ''again'' what I said above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I have, and I'm not trolling or anything, but I honestly can't imagine how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon and create all the observed phenomena (stratified rock, U-turns, sheer cliff faces, etc). Maybe there should be a section in the article about how the Grand Canyon was formed? Because I don't think I've read about the exact process from a creationist viewpoint before, and creationists do bring the Grand Canyon up a lot, so, I think it would be important. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 08:34, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

== What? ==

The theory of creationism doesn't necessarily ride on the great flood creating the Grand Canyon and other geographical features. Why harm your credibility by making such ludicrous claims? Do you realize the amount of force that would be required to form the Grand Canyon all at once?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 11:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You mean, like God? God is a lot of force. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::And do you realize how unstable the Grand Canyon would be if it happened all at once like this article claims? And the area around it? All of the evidence points to a gradual formation due to erosion. The only evidence this article uses to support its theory seem to be the questions of somebody who doesn't know very much about the subject. No hard data. Just questions. Again, why harm the credibility of creationism by making these claims?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 15:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Going by what the Bible says hardly hurts the claims of creationists. It only strengthens them. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 15:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::The Bible says that the flood formed the Grand Canyon? Where? Even if it does though, if it were true there would be evidence of it, which there isn't. So if it really does say that i guess it hurts the Bible's credibility--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 20:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The Grand Canyon is obviously a hole in the ground punched out by the immense pressure of water, like an ocean basin. The canyon's shape is nothing like the winding shape of the Colorado River that [[evolutionists]] pretend carved it over an absurd number of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Do you really think the river has been the same shape for an "absurd number of years"? It doesn't take very long at all for a river to change course, and over the course of many many years it can very easily shape the Grand Canyon. Do you realize the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause to the entire earth?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 14:09, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::'the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause' - perhaps the exact amount we see in the Grand Canyon? What else is the huge hole in the ground but damage? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Courses of rivers may change from time to time, but their shapes never correspond to the shape of the Grand Canyon. But ocean basins do. Does the evidence matter, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::@JCW, there would be far more than a hole in the ground if that amount of force was "punched" into the earth. The meteor that killed off the dinosaurs had drastic global effects, and even it did not have the amount to force necessary to create a canyon of that size.

::::::::@Aschlafly, where did you get this "evidence" that the rivers have never corresponded to the shape of the Grand Canyon? The river moved all over the area, slowly eroding it away piece by piece. Nobody is claiming that it was eroded by a river the exact shape that it is now.--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Jab512, the evidence is that of an ocean basin. That's the starting point for any objective analysis. No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin; but many have been formed by being submerged completely in water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::How is that the starting point for any objective analysis? There is no conclusion in a starting point of an objective analysis. That's why it's objective. But i digress."''No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin''" and you know this how? Please provide evidence to back up this statement. You say the GC is consistent in shape with an ocean basin? How do you think those are formed? Wouldn't happen to be erosion over time would it?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: No, the [[Grand Canyon]] is not the shape of a slowly eroded valley. It's the shape of a suddenly collapsed ocean floor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
What other "suddenly collapsed ocean floor" are you comparing it to? How can you say that it is the same shape as something that has never happened before this instance, if that really was how it was formed? --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 22:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:There are many examples of "ocean basin" explained on the internet ... and ocean basins look like the [[Grand Canyon]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::The Mariana Trench would be a good example.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:23, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Grand Canyon National Park

2011-08-14T03:23:03Z

Aortuso:

I don't understand the point of these article stubs that do nothing more then tell us that the world was created by god. We already know that, now let's have some real facts. Until this site starts to have actual information about things it will be useless as a source of information

Bill M just removed some facts, so I am putting them back. Why the change? Is something not correct? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== geology is NOT evolution! ==

How many times are we going to see this? Evolution refers to a BIOLOGICAL theory about the ascent (or descent if you prefer) of species of life. Today, it is generally understood as referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as neo-Darwinism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theories or concepts of Geology and Geography, that is, to do with stones, earth, erosion, canyons, oceans, mountains, and suchlike. No geologist believes that Planet Earth "evolved", because Earth is not a living thing, and geological formations, like mountains, seas, etc do not reproduce and therefore are not subject to natural selection pressures the way living things are.

It would be quite possible for a geologist to be an old-world creationist, so obviously, one can hold that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and was formed primarily by erosion, without being an "evolutionist". Can we get that straight once and for all?
[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:As far as the definition of "evolution" is concerned, see [[Definitions of evolution]], where you will see that it ''can'' be used to refer to things other than biological evolution. (To paraphrase, how many times are we going to see this denial that evolution can mean something other than biological evolution?) However, that may not apply so much for "evolutionist", and just because one wording is correct doesn't mean that it's the ''best'' wording, so I agree in this case and have changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation ==

I don't know if I am the first person to suggest this, but in the interest of impartial scientific inquiry, I would like to propose a small scientific experiment to test the two theories of how the Grand Canyon formed. These theories, very briefly alluded to in the article, are as follows.

1. Secular geological theory. Rocks of Grand Canyon are around 2 billion years old. Earth is slowly being lifted in region. River carries small sandy sediment, and this acts as tiny abraders. Over a period of 6 million years, river has cut out Canyon via very gradual erosion, spoonfuls of stuff per day.

2. Biblical Geological theory. Earth created about 6 thousand years ago. When God drowned world on account of human sinfulness about 4,500 years ago in a massive but brief flood, Grand Canyon was created via torrents of water carrying boulders the size of dump trucks which smashed and gouged millions of tons of rubble out of what is now the Canyon, in a matter of days.

Now an experiment to test the predictive power of the two ideas. First build two small water courses, using simple hoses and gentle paths down which the water can flow. The two setups should be as alike one another as possible. They need be only about say 40 feet long and 3 feet across. These are rivers in miniature. Now we allow one river to carry small amounts of sand and silt and we measure the erosion rate after a year. With the other “river”, we get a powerful fire hose, and give it a 30 second blast, powerful enough to send house bricks flying down the torrent. Now, we compare the after-effects. Which one more closely resembles the Grand Canyon? Do the two effects, one very brief and violent, the other long and subtle, REALLY produce effects that could be mistaken one for another? Well, what concerns me is that the YEC crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that Biblical accounts can be proved. Well here’s your chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

Let me give you a clue. Let us suppose a recipe said “Simmer on low heat for two hours”, and Holy Joe decided to save time and nuked it for 1 second at 1000 degrees, on the grounds that the higher heat should be compensated for by the shorter time, so that you will get your mouth-watering stew after only a second instead of waiting for a whole two hours. Now, Holy Joe takes off the lid of the saucepan, and a pall of black smoke emanates. Imagine his surprise when he looks down and sees a toffee-like mass of burning gunk! Well! Holy Joe was certainly surprised, but are we, my fellow scientists? So, while I will not pre-empt a verdict on the two water courses experiment, I should nevertheless warn you that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time, MIGHT just not come the SAME THING as putting 40000 gallons down there for 30 seconds. Nevertheless, I am sure that “Creation Science” being a well-endowed body, and ever so sincerely interested in “science” will provide the small funding necessary to set up this experiment and then pursue this line of enquiry with enthusiasm and honesty.[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:What biased tripe!

:Okay, now that I've put you off-side ( :-) ), I'll add that the experiment itself is probably a fair idea (although I think the test area might be a bit undersized for a fire hose).

:No, my concern is that you are trying to put the onus on creationists for this. To paraphrase your comments, what concerns me is that the secular crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that their secular accounts can be proved. (In contrast, by the way, to the YECs who do ''not'' claim that their ideas can be proved. Rather, they point out the impossibility of scientifically observing and testing unique historical events, and argue that the evidence is ''more consistent with'' the Biblical account, not that they can ''prove'' the biblical account.) You also have the chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

:I'd agree that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time might not have the same results of a lot of water very quickly. But your presumption that the small amount over a long time can produce the results that we see is not supported by any observations or experiments.

:Furthermore, your inference that "Creation Science" is "well endowed" is laughable. It's secular geology, not flood geology, that gets government grants and other funding for research. Compared to secular ideas, creationist ideas get a drop in the Grand Canyon, to coin a phrase.

:However, that's not the end of it. Although I know of no such experiments, I do know of ''observations'' that support the YEC position. See for example [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/421 this example] of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658 Engineer's Canyon], one fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon, formed in one day. Now please point me to ''observations'' of canyons forming over millions of years.

:Can't, can you?

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's kind of funny, I was reading about the Grand Canyon here on conservapedia, and had the same idea for an experiment. I don't have the time or money or space to do it, however. I did search the Institute for Creation Science's website, but didn't find any papers about an actual experiment, just papers on the problems with radioisotope dating rocks in the Grand Canyon or what have you. Now, to clear up a couple misconceptions about science. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a giant flood, the burden of proof is on you. That's just how science works. Secular geologists don't have run around disproving every hypothesis you put forward. (I was really hoping I would find that the Institute for Creation Research would of done an experiment similar to this) Also, science doesn't prove anything. Science can't prove anything. Again, that just isn't how science works.

::Anyways, in the article you provided about the Burlingame Canyon, it says that it was carved out of "rather soft sand and clay". In the article about Engineer's Canyon it says it was carved out of "earlier pyroclastic deposits", in other words, soft volcanic ash. But, the Grand Canyon was largely carved out of much stronger sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone. So, the two events just aren't comparable to the formation of the Grand Canyon because their compositions are so radically different. If you can find a canyon that was carved out of solid rock approximating that of the Grand Canyon, in a relatively short amount of time and with conditions approximating the flood (even if on a much smaller scale), you would be going a long way in showing that the Grand Canyon could of been formed in a global, catastrophic flood. Until then, I'm just going to have to remain unconvinced.

::[[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:14, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::You're absolutely correct...science can't prove anything. Like the belief that the Grand Canyon or anything else on earth was formed over the course of billions of years. As to the Great Flood doing it, here's the experiment you can perform at home: take multiple buckets of different kinds of earth, wet them down, and throw them on top of each other; sink the whole under water for a time; then raise it and run a garden hose through the center, pretending it's drainage from the flood waters. Let dry. You're little thingy in the back yard is going to look an awful like a canyon. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I don't doubt that you could form a canyon out of soft, wet earth relatively quickly. What I do doubt is that you can form a canyon out of hard rock (such as that found in the Grand Canyon) relatively quickly. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::And who ''says'' the rock was hard when the water drained away? Every layer of rock seen on both sides of that canyon was laid down by water, and it certainly was not rock when it was laid down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying the flood carved the Grand Canyon out of hard rock that already existed in the area by softening it? Or that the flood deposited around a mile of sediments in the area, and then carved the Grand Canyon out of that and then those sediments hardened? Or something else? Can you be more specific about the timeline of events that happened to form the Grand Canyon? [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 14:28, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I think you better read ''again'' what I said above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I have, and I'm not trolling or anything, but I honestly can't imagine how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon and create all the observed phenomena (stratified rock, U-turns, sheer cliff faces, etc). Maybe there should be a section in the article about how the Grand Canyon was formed? Because I don't think I've read about the exact process from a creationist viewpoint before, and creationists do bring the Grand Canyon up a lot, so, I think it would be important. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 08:34, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

== What? ==

The theory of creationism doesn't necessarily ride on the great flood creating the Grand Canyon and other geographical features. Why harm your credibility by making such ludicrous claims? Do you realize the amount of force that would be required to form the Grand Canyon all at once?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 11:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You mean, like God? God is a lot of force. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::And do you realize how unstable the Grand Canyon would be if it happened all at once like this article claims? And the area around it? All of the evidence points to a gradual formation due to erosion. The only evidence this article uses to support its theory seem to be the questions of somebody who doesn't know very much about the subject. No hard data. Just questions. Again, why harm the credibility of creationism by making these claims?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 15:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Going by what the Bible says hardly hurts the claims of creationists. It only strengthens them. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 15:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::The Bible says that the flood formed the Grand Canyon? Where? Even if it does though, if it were true there would be evidence of it, which there isn't. So if it really does say that i guess it hurts the Bible's credibility--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 20:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The Grand Canyon is obviously a hole in the ground punched out by the immense pressure of water, like an ocean basin. The canyon's shape is nothing like the winding shape of the Colorado River that [[evolutionists]] pretend carved it over an absurd number of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Do you really think the river has been the same shape for an "absurd number of years"? It doesn't take very long at all for a river to change course, and over the course of many many years it can very easily shape the Grand Canyon. Do you realize the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause to the entire earth?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 14:09, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::'the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause' - perhaps the exact amount we see in the Grand Canyon? What else is the huge hole in the ground but damage? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Courses of rivers may change from time to time, but their shapes never correspond to the shape of the Grand Canyon. But ocean basins do. Does the evidence matter, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::@JCW, there would be far more than a hole in the ground if that amount of force was "punched" into the earth. The meteor that killed off the dinosaurs had drastic global effects, and even it did not have the amount to force necessary to create a canyon of that size.

::::::::@Aschlafly, where did you get this "evidence" that the rivers have never corresponded to the shape of the Grand Canyon? The river moved all over the area, slowly eroding it away piece by piece. Nobody is claiming that it was eroded by a river the exact shape that it is now.--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Jab512, the evidence is that of an ocean basin. That's the starting point for any objective analysis. No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin; but many have been formed by being submerged completely in water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::How is that the starting point for any objective analysis? There is no conclusion in a starting point of an objective analysis. That's why it's objective. But i digress."''No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin''" and you know this how? Please provide evidence to back up this statement. You say the GC is consistent in shape with an ocean basin? How do you think those are formed? Wouldn't happen to be erosion over time would it?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: No, the [[Grand Canyon]] is not the shape of a slowly eroded valley. It's the shape of a suddenly collapsed ocean floor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
What other "suddenly collapsed ocean floor" are you comparing it to? How can you say that it is the same shape as something that has never happened before this instance, if that really was how it was formed? --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 22:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:There are many examples of "ocean basin" explained on the internet ... and ocean basins look like the [[Grand Canyon]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::The Mariana Trench would be a good example.--

Talk:Grand Canyon National Park

2011-08-14T03:22:41Z

Aortuso:

I don't understand the point of these article stubs that do nothing more then tell us that the world was created by god. We already know that, now let's have some real facts. Until this site starts to have actual information about things it will be useless as a source of information

Bill M just removed some facts, so I am putting them back. Why the change? Is something not correct? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== geology is NOT evolution! ==

How many times are we going to see this? Evolution refers to a BIOLOGICAL theory about the ascent (or descent if you prefer) of species of life. Today, it is generally understood as referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as neo-Darwinism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theories or concepts of Geology and Geography, that is, to do with stones, earth, erosion, canyons, oceans, mountains, and suchlike. No geologist believes that Planet Earth "evolved", because Earth is not a living thing, and geological formations, like mountains, seas, etc do not reproduce and therefore are not subject to natural selection pressures the way living things are.

It would be quite possible for a geologist to be an old-world creationist, so obviously, one can hold that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and was formed primarily by erosion, without being an "evolutionist". Can we get that straight once and for all?
[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:As far as the definition of "evolution" is concerned, see [[Definitions of evolution]], where you will see that it ''can'' be used to refer to things other than biological evolution. (To paraphrase, how many times are we going to see this denial that evolution can mean something other than biological evolution?) However, that may not apply so much for "evolutionist", and just because one wording is correct doesn't mean that it's the ''best'' wording, so I agree in this case and have changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation ==

I don't know if I am the first person to suggest this, but in the interest of impartial scientific inquiry, I would like to propose a small scientific experiment to test the two theories of how the Grand Canyon formed. These theories, very briefly alluded to in the article, are as follows.

1. Secular geological theory. Rocks of Grand Canyon are around 2 billion years old. Earth is slowly being lifted in region. River carries small sandy sediment, and this acts as tiny abraders. Over a period of 6 million years, river has cut out Canyon via very gradual erosion, spoonfuls of stuff per day.

2. Biblical Geological theory. Earth created about 6 thousand years ago. When God drowned world on account of human sinfulness about 4,500 years ago in a massive but brief flood, Grand Canyon was created via torrents of water carrying boulders the size of dump trucks which smashed and gouged millions of tons of rubble out of what is now the Canyon, in a matter of days.

Now an experiment to test the predictive power of the two ideas. First build two small water courses, using simple hoses and gentle paths down which the water can flow. The two setups should be as alike one another as possible. They need be only about say 40 feet long and 3 feet across. These are rivers in miniature. Now we allow one river to carry small amounts of sand and silt and we measure the erosion rate after a year. With the other “river”, we get a powerful fire hose, and give it a 30 second blast, powerful enough to send house bricks flying down the torrent. Now, we compare the after-effects. Which one more closely resembles the Grand Canyon? Do the two effects, one very brief and violent, the other long and subtle, REALLY produce effects that could be mistaken one for another? Well, what concerns me is that the YEC crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that Biblical accounts can be proved. Well here’s your chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

Let me give you a clue. Let us suppose a recipe said “Simmer on low heat for two hours”, and Holy Joe decided to save time and nuked it for 1 second at 1000 degrees, on the grounds that the higher heat should be compensated for by the shorter time, so that you will get your mouth-watering stew after only a second instead of waiting for a whole two hours. Now, Holy Joe takes off the lid of the saucepan, and a pall of black smoke emanates. Imagine his surprise when he looks down and sees a toffee-like mass of burning gunk! Well! Holy Joe was certainly surprised, but are we, my fellow scientists? So, while I will not pre-empt a verdict on the two water courses experiment, I should nevertheless warn you that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time, MIGHT just not come the SAME THING as putting 40000 gallons down there for 30 seconds. Nevertheless, I am sure that “Creation Science” being a well-endowed body, and ever so sincerely interested in “science” will provide the small funding necessary to set up this experiment and then pursue this line of enquiry with enthusiasm and honesty.[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:What biased tripe!

:Okay, now that I've put you off-side ( :-) ), I'll add that the experiment itself is probably a fair idea (although I think the test area might be a bit undersized for a fire hose).

:No, my concern is that you are trying to put the onus on creationists for this. To paraphrase your comments, what concerns me is that the secular crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that their secular accounts can be proved. (In contrast, by the way, to the YECs who do ''not'' claim that their ideas can be proved. Rather, they point out the impossibility of scientifically observing and testing unique historical events, and argue that the evidence is ''more consistent with'' the Biblical account, not that they can ''prove'' the biblical account.) You also have the chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

:I'd agree that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time might not have the same results of a lot of water very quickly. But your presumption that the small amount over a long time can produce the results that we see is not supported by any observations or experiments.

:Furthermore, your inference that "Creation Science" is "well endowed" is laughable. It's secular geology, not flood geology, that gets government grants and other funding for research. Compared to secular ideas, creationist ideas get a drop in the Grand Canyon, to coin a phrase.

:However, that's not the end of it. Although I know of no such experiments, I do know of ''observations'' that support the YEC position. See for example [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/421 this example] of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658 Engineer's Canyon], one fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon, formed in one day. Now please point me to ''observations'' of canyons forming over millions of years.

:Can't, can you?

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's kind of funny, I was reading about the Grand Canyon here on conservapedia, and had the same idea for an experiment. I don't have the time or money or space to do it, however. I did search the Institute for Creation Science's website, but didn't find any papers about an actual experiment, just papers on the problems with radioisotope dating rocks in the Grand Canyon or what have you. Now, to clear up a couple misconceptions about science. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a giant flood, the burden of proof is on you. That's just how science works. Secular geologists don't have run around disproving every hypothesis you put forward. (I was really hoping I would find that the Institute for Creation Research would of done an experiment similar to this) Also, science doesn't prove anything. Science can't prove anything. Again, that just isn't how science works.

::Anyways, in the article you provided about the Burlingame Canyon, it says that it was carved out of "rather soft sand and clay". In the article about Engineer's Canyon it says it was carved out of "earlier pyroclastic deposits", in other words, soft volcanic ash. But, the Grand Canyon was largely carved out of much stronger sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone. So, the two events just aren't comparable to the formation of the Grand Canyon because their compositions are so radically different. If you can find a canyon that was carved out of solid rock approximating that of the Grand Canyon, in a relatively short amount of time and with conditions approximating the flood (even if on a much smaller scale), you would be going a long way in showing that the Grand Canyon could of been formed in a global, catastrophic flood. Until then, I'm just going to have to remain unconvinced.

::[[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:14, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::You're absolutely correct...science can't prove anything. Like the belief that the Grand Canyon or anything else on earth was formed over the course of billions of years. As to the Great Flood doing it, here's the experiment you can perform at home: take multiple buckets of different kinds of earth, wet them down, and throw them on top of each other; sink the whole under water for a time; then raise it and run a garden hose through the center, pretending it's drainage from the flood waters. Let dry. You're little thingy in the back yard is going to look an awful like a canyon. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I don't doubt that you could form a canyon out of soft, wet earth relatively quickly. What I do doubt is that you can form a canyon out of hard rock (such as that found in the Grand Canyon) relatively quickly. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 13:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::And who ''says'' the rock was hard when the water drained away? Every layer of rock seen on both sides of that canyon was laid down by water, and it certainly was not rock when it was laid down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying the flood carved the Grand Canyon out of hard rock that already existed in the area by softening it? Or that the flood deposited around a mile of sediments in the area, and then carved the Grand Canyon out of that and then those sediments hardened? Or something else? Can you be more specific about the timeline of events that happened to form the Grand Canyon? [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 14:28, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I think you better read ''again'' what I said above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I have, and I'm not trolling or anything, but I honestly can't imagine how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon and create all the observed phenomena (stratified rock, U-turns, sheer cliff faces, etc). Maybe there should be a section in the article about how the Grand Canyon was formed? Because I don't think I've read about the exact process from a creationist viewpoint before, and creationists do bring the Grand Canyon up a lot, so, I think it would be important. [[User:Aurix|Aurix]] 08:34, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

== What? ==

The theory of creationism doesn't necessarily ride on the great flood creating the Grand Canyon and other geographical features. Why harm your credibility by making such ludicrous claims? Do you realize the amount of force that would be required to form the Grand Canyon all at once?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 11:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You mean, like God? God is a lot of force. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::And do you realize how unstable the Grand Canyon would be if it happened all at once like this article claims? And the area around it? All of the evidence points to a gradual formation due to erosion. The only evidence this article uses to support its theory seem to be the questions of somebody who doesn't know very much about the subject. No hard data. Just questions. Again, why harm the credibility of creationism by making these claims?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 15:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Going by what the Bible says hardly hurts the claims of creationists. It only strengthens them. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 15:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::The Bible says that the flood formed the Grand Canyon? Where? Even if it does though, if it were true there would be evidence of it, which there isn't. So if it really does say that i guess it hurts the Bible's credibility--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 20:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The Grand Canyon is obviously a hole in the ground punched out by the immense pressure of water, like an ocean basin. The canyon's shape is nothing like the winding shape of the Colorado River that [[evolutionists]] pretend carved it over an absurd number of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Do you really think the river has been the same shape for an "absurd number of years"? It doesn't take very long at all for a river to change course, and over the course of many many years it can very easily shape the Grand Canyon. Do you realize the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause to the entire earth?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 14:09, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::'the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause' - perhaps the exact amount we see in the Grand Canyon? What else is the huge hole in the ground but damage? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Courses of rivers may change from time to time, but their shapes never correspond to the shape of the Grand Canyon. But ocean basins do. Does the evidence matter, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::@JCW, there would be far more than a hole in the ground if that amount of force was "punched" into the earth. The meteor that killed off the dinosaurs had drastic global effects, and even it did not have the amount to force necessary to create a canyon of that size.

::::::::@Aschlafly, where did you get this "evidence" that the rivers have never corresponded to the shape of the Grand Canyon? The river moved all over the area, slowly eroding it away piece by piece. Nobody is claiming that it was eroded by a river the exact shape that it is now.--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Jab512, the evidence is that of an ocean basin. That's the starting point for any objective analysis. No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin; but many have been formed by being submerged completely in water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::How is that the starting point for any objective analysis? There is no conclusion in a starting point of an objective analysis. That's why it's objective. But i digress."''No river has ever been known to carve a shape like an ocean basin''" and you know this how? Please provide evidence to back up this statement. You say the GC is consistent in shape with an ocean basin? How do you think those are formed? Wouldn't happen to be erosion over time would it?--[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 23:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: No, the [[Grand Canyon]] is not the shape of a slowly eroded valley. It's the shape of a suddenly collapsed ocean floor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
What other "suddenly collapsed ocean floor" are you comparing it to? How can you say that it is the same shape as something that has never happened before this instance, if that really was how it was formed? --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 22:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:There are many examples of "ocean basin" explained on the internet ... and ocean basins look like the [[Grand Canyon]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::The Mariana Trench would be a good example.~~

New Zealand

2011-08-14T03:19:50Z

Aortuso:

{{Country
|name =''Aotearoa New Zealand''
|map =New zealand rel 2006.jpg
|flag =Flag of New Zealand.png
|arms =Arms of New Zealand.png
|capital =Wellington
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =English, Maori, New Zealand Sign Language
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =John Key
|pm-raw =
|area =150,871 sq. miles
|pop =4,252,000
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$117.696 billion
|gdp-year =2008
|gdp-pc =$27,785
|currency =New Zealand Dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''New Zealand''' ([[Maori]]: '''Aotearoa''' - translates as ''Land of the Long White Cloud'') is an independent country in the southern [[Pacific Ocean]] comprising two large islands (North Island and South Island) and numerous smaller islands, most notably Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands. It is named after Zeeland, a province of the Netherlands. The Realm of New Zealand also includes the Cook Islands and Niue, which are self-governing, but in 'free association'; Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency (New Zealand's Antarctic territorial claim). New Zealand is notable for its geographic isolation, being separated from Australia to the northwest by the Tasman Sea, approximately 2000 kilometers (1250 miles) across. Its closest neighbours to the north are [[New Caledonia]], [[Fiji]], and [[Tonga]]. [[Wellington]] is the capital of New Zealand; [[Auckland]] is the largest city.

==People==
[[File:Maori people New Zealand.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Maori people.]]
Most of the 4 million New Zealanders are of British Isles origin. About 15% claim Maori descent although it is now assumed, but not confirmed, that there are now no full blooded Maori's left. Nearly 76% of the people, including a large majority of Maori, live on North Island. In addition, 265,974 Pacific peoples live in New Zealand, primarily in Auckland. During the late 1870s, natural increase permanently replaced immigration as the chief contributor to population growth and accounted for more than 75% of population growth in the 20th century. Nearly 85% of New Zealand's population lives in urban areas (with over one million in Auckland alone), where the service and manufacturing industries are growing rapidly. New Zealanders colloquially refer to themselves as "Kiwis," after the country's native bird.
*Population: 4,267,678.
*Annual growth rate (since December 2006): 0.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 64.8%; Maori (or part Maori) 14%; Asian 8.8%; other Polynesian Pacific peoples 6.6%; Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African 0.9%; other 10.7%. (Note: People can choose to identify with more than one ethnic group.)
*Religions: Christian 50%, no religion 32.3%, not stated 7.3%, Hindu 1.6%, Buddhist 1.3%, Islam/Muslim 0.9%, Jewish 0.2%, Spiritualism/New Age 0.5%, other 0.6%.
*Languages: English, Maori, New Zealand Sign Language.
*Education: Years compulsory--ages 5-16. Attendance--100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (December 2006)--5.1/1,000. Life expectancy (December 2006)--males 77.9 yrs., females 81.9 yrs.
*Work force: 75.2% of 15-64 year olds or 2.057 million. Services and government--59%; manufacturing and construction--32%; agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining--8.9%.

==History==
Archaeological evidence indicates that New Zealand was populated by fishing and hunting people of East Polynesian ancestry perhaps 1,000 years before Europeans arrived. Known to some scholars as the Moa-hunters, they may have merged with later waves of Polynesians who, according to Maori tradition, arrived between 952 and 1150. Some of the Maoris called their new homeland "Aotearoa," usually translated as "land of the long white cloud."

In 1642, Abel Tasman, a Dutch navigator, made the first recorded European sighting of New Zealand and sketched sections of the two main islands' west coasts. British explorer [[James Cook]] thoroughly explored the coastline during three South Pacific voyages beginning in 1769. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, lumbering, seal hunting, and [[whaling]] attracted a few European settlers to New Zealand. In 1840, the British established their sovereignty and signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Maori chiefs.
[[File:Paparoa National Bank building former New Zealand.jpg|thumb|left|270px|Former Paparoa National Bank building.]]
In the same year, British settlers began the colonization process. Expanding British settlement led to conflict with Maori, most notably in the Maori land wars of the 1860s. British and colonial forces eventually overcame determined Maori resistance. During this period, many Maori died from disease and warfare, much of it intertribal.

Constitutional government began to develop in the 1850s. In 1867, the Maori won the right to a certain number of reserved seats in parliament. During this period, the livestock industry began to expand, and the foundations of New Zealand's modern economy took shape. By the end of the 19th century, improved transportation facilities made possible a great overseas trade in wool, meat, and dairy products.

By the 1890s, parliamentary government along democratic lines was well-established, and New Zealand's social institutions assumed their present form. Women received the right to vote in national elections in 1893. The turn of the century brought sweeping social reforms that built the foundation for New Zealand's version of the welfare state.

The Maori gradually recovered from population decline and, through interaction and intermarriage with settlers and missionaries, adopted much of European culture. In recent decades, Maori have become increasingly urbanized and have become more politically active and culturally assertive. They now have a number of political parties and enjoy some political influence.

New Zealand was declared a dominion by a royal proclamation in 1907. It achieved full internal and external autonomy by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1947, although this merely formalized a situation that had existed for many years.

== Government ==
[[File:Municipal Offices Public Library Timaru NZ PD.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Municipal Offices, Public Library, Timaru.]]
New Zealand is a parliamentary [[democracy]]. Under the Royal Titles Act (1953), Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of New Zealand and is represented as head of state by the Governor-General, currently Anand Satyanand.

New Zealand is the only country in the world in which all the highest offices in the land have been occupied simultaneously by women: Queen [[Elizabeth II]], Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright, Prime Minister [[Helen Clark]], Speaker of the House of Representatives Margaret Wilson and Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias were all in office between March 2005 and August 2006.
New Zealand's first woman prime minister was Jenny Shipley, however Helen Clark lays claim to be the first ''elected'' woman prime minister, as Jenny Shipley was appointed to the role by the National Party Caucus to replace the Prime Minister of the time, Jim Bolger.

The New Zealand Parliament<ref>[http://www.govt.nz/ Official government site]</ref> has only one chamber, the House of Representatives, which usually seats 120 Members of Parliament. Parliamentary general elections are held every three years under a form of [[proportional representation]] called Mixed Member Proportional. The 2005 General Election created an 'overhang' of one extra seat, occupied by the Māori Party, due to that party winning more seats in electorates than the number of seats its proportion of the party vote would have given it. The position of Prime Minister falls to the leader of the majority party in Parliament and may be changed at any time at the discretion of the majority party Caucus.
[[Image:Auckland - New Zealand.jpg|thumb|300px|Auckland]]
There is no written constitution: the Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional structure. The rules regulating the running of the country are primarily constitutional conventions which are not codified and subject to evolution. Despite this unconventional approach to governance New Zealand is yet to have any major constitutional crises. The Governor-General has the power to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers and to dissolve Parliament. The Governor-General also chairs the Executive Council, which is a formal committee consisting of all ministers of the Crown. Members of the Executive Council are required to be Members of Parliament, and most are also in Cabinet. Cabinet is the most senior policy-making body and is led by the Prime Minister, who is also, by convention, the Parliamentary leader of the governing party or coalition.

The current Prime Minister is [[John Key]], leader of the National Party. Following the 8th of November 2008 election, the National Party signed confidence and supply agreements with the ACT, the Maori Party and United Future, allowing them to form a government. This entitled some members of the above parties to ministerial positions outside of cabinet.

The Leader of the Opposition, is Labour Party leader Phil Goff. The Green party and the Progressive party are both also in in opposition.

The highest court in New Zealand is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. This was established in 2004 following the passage of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which also abolished the option to appeal to the Privy Council in London. The current Chief Justice is Dame Sian Elias. New Zealand's judiciary also includes the High Court, which deals with serious criminal offences, civil matters and judicial review. The court system also includes the Court of Appeal, and subordinate courts.

The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second. The defence forces hold commissions and warrants from the Queen, signed on her behalf by her representative the Governor General. However command of the armed forces is by order of Parliament, rather than by the Queen.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Chief of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--His Excellency Honourable Anand Satyanand
*Prime Minister--Rt. Hon. John Key
*Foreign Minister--Rt. Hon. Murray McCully
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Rosemary Banks

===Political Conditions===
[[File:Wellington New Zealand WC.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Wellington, the capital city.]]
The traditionally conservative National Party and left-leaning Labour Party have dominated New Zealand political life since a Labour government came to power in 1935. During its first 14 years in office, the Labour Party implemented a broad array of social and economic legislation, including comprehensive social security, a large-scale public works program, a 40-hour workweek, a minimum basic wage, and compulsory unionism. The National Party won control of the government in 1949 and adopted many welfare measures instituted by the Labour Party. Except for two brief periods of Labour governments in 1957-60 and 1972-75, National held power until 1984. After regaining control in 1984, the Labour government instituted a series of radical market-oriented reforms in response to New Zealand's mounting external debt.

At this time, the Labour government also enacted anti-nuclear legislation that effectively brought about New Zealand's suspension from the ANZUS security alliance with the United States and Australia. New Zealand's nuclear-free status has widespread support from the New Zealand public. An alleged comment by National Party leader Don Brash in 2004 to a group of American senators that NZ's anti-nuclear status would be 'gone by lunchtime' caused a minor political scandal.

In October 1990, the National Party again formed the government, for the first of three 3-year terms. In 1996, New Zealand inaugurated a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system to elect its parliament. The system was designed to increase representation of smaller parties in parliament and appears to have done so in the MMP elections to date. Since 1996, neither the National nor the Labour Party has had an absolute majority in parliament, and for all but one of those years, the government has been a minority one. The Labour Party won elections in November 1999 and again in July 2002. In 2002 Labour formed a coalition, minority government with the Progressive Coalition, an economically left-wing but socially conservative party holding two seats in parliament. The government relied on support from the centrist United Future Party to pass legislation.

Following a narrow victory in the September 2005 general elections, Labour formed a coalition with the one-seat Progressive Party. The government also entered into limited support agreements with the United Future New Zealand and NZ First Parties, whose leaders were respectively given the Revenue and Foreign Affairs ministerial positions outside of the cabinet. This gave Labour an effective one-seat majority with which to pass legislation in parliament. Labour also secured an assurance from the Green Party that it will abstain from a vote of confidence against the government. The 2005 elections saw the new Maori Party win four out of the seven reserved Maori seats. There are 121 current members of parliament, the additional seat the result of an overhang from 2005 elections. There are currently two independent members of parliament (MPs): a former Labour Party MP and a former United Future New Zealand MP, both of whom left their respective parties in 2007. The latest general election was held in November 2008 and resulted in a Minority National government led by John Key. The next election will be held in November 2011.

===Foreign Policy===
New Zealand maintains a strong profile on environmental protection, human rights and free trade, particularly in agriculture.

New Zealand is a member of the following geo-political organisations: APEC, East Asia Summit, Commonwealth of Nations, OECD and the [[United Nations]]. It has signed up to a number of free trade agreements, most recently with [[Japan]], of which the most important is Closer Economic Relations with Australia.

For its first hundred years, New Zealand followed the United Kingdom's lead on foreign policy. In declaring war on [[Germany]] on 3 September 1939, Prime Minister Michael Savage proclaimed "Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand". Post WWII ties with America strengthened, but unlike close neighbour Australia, have never done so to the point that they may be considered stronger than the ties to the UK.

New Zealand has traditionally worked closely with Australia, whose foreign policy followed a similar historical trend. In turn, many Pacific Islands such as Western Samoa have looked to New Zealand's lead.

The relationship between American and New Zealand was weakened by the disappointment with the [[Vietnam War]], the sinking of the [[Greenpeace]] vessel ''Rainbow Warrior'' by [[France]], and by disagreements over environmental and agricultural trade issues and New Zealand's nuclear-free policy.

Conversely, New Zealand sent troops to [[Afghanistan]] to aid the American Army.

===National Security===
[[File:Boer War Memorial, Dunedin, NZ soldiers.JPG|thumb|400px|Boer War Memorial, Dunedin.]]
New Zealand is a party to the ANZUS security treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the US. While the treaty was once fully mutual between Australia, New Zealand and the United States, this is no longer the case. Since February 1985, New Zealand has refused nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships access to its ports. In 1986, the United States announced that it was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear armed or propelled ships. This legislation remains a source of contention and the basis for the United States' continued suspension of treaty obligations to New Zealand. Due to the US Navy policy of refusing to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear arms on any US Navy ship, the only US naval ships to enter NZ waters since that time have been unarmed auxiliary units with some exceptions where the US State Department have over-ruled the Naval policy for specific ships on visits.

In addition to the various wars between Maori tribes, and between the British settlers and certain tribes, New Zealand has fought in the Second Boer War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency (and committed troops, fighters and bombers to the subsequent confrontation with Indonesia), the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the Afghanistan War. New Zealand refused to participate in the Iraq War without UN sanction. However, they sent a unit of army engineers to help rebuild Iraqi infrastructure for one year following the invasion.

The New Zealand military has three branches: the New Zealand Army, the Royal New Zealand Navy, and the Royal New Zealand Air Force. New Zealand considers its own national defence needs to be modest; it dismantled its air combat capability in 2001. New Zealand has contributed forces to recent regional and global peacekeeping missions, including those in Cyprus, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Sinai, Angola, Cambodia, the Iran/Iraq border, Bougainville and East Timor.

New Zealand has three defense policy objectives--defend New Zealand against low-level threats, contribute to regional security, and play a part in global security efforts. New Zealand has considered its own national defense needs to be modest. Its defense budget generally has provided for selected upgrades in equipment. Shortly after winning the 1999 election, the Labour government canceled a lease-to-buy agreement with the U.S. for 28 F-16 aircraft. However, Labour did embark on a significant defense upgrade and acquisition plan. All three services have benefited from the upgrades/acquisitions. In 2001, the government contracted to purchase 105 LAVIIIs for U.S. $300 million, with delivery completed in 2005. The Army also purchased 321 Light Operational Vehicles to make its forces more mobile. In 2002, New Zealand announced planned upgrades of its P3 and C-130 Hercules aircraft, and purchased two Boeing 757 aircraft for U.S. $100 million. In 2006 New Zealand contracted with NH Industries to purchase eight NH-90 aircraft to start delivery in 2009. In 2007 they entered an agreement to purchase 12 A-109 light helicopters from Agosta to also start delivery in 2009. The P-3s, C-130s, and B-757s are all currently being upgraded/modified. In 2007, the Navy began accepting delivery of the U.S. $250 million Project Protector program consisting of one multi-role vessel (MRV), two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs), and four inshore patrol vessels (IPVs).

In May 2001, the government announced it was scrapping its combat air force. New Zealand states it maintains a "credible minimum force," although critics maintain that the country's defense forces have fallen below this standard. New Zealand still maintains the fleet of A-4 Skyhawk jets and Aerromacche jets left over from the scrapping of its combat air force. Its attempts to sell the jets have thus far failed.

With a claimed area of direct strategic concern that extends from Australia to Southeast Asia to the South Pacific, New Zealand necessarily places substantial reliance on its defense relationship with other countries, in particular Australia. However, acknowledging the need to improve its defense capabilities, the government in 2005 announced the Defense Sustainability Initiative allocating an additional NZ$4.6 billion (U.S. $3.19 billion) over 10 years to modernize the country's defense equipment and infrastructure and increase its military personnel. The funding represented a 51% increase in defense spending since the Labour government took office in 1999.

New Zealand is an active participant in multilateral peacekeeping. It has taken a leading role in trying to bring peace, reconciliation, and reconstruction to the Solomon Islands and the neighboring island of Bougainville. New Zealand maintains a contingent in the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers and has contributed to UN peacekeeping operations in Angola, Cambodia, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia. It also participated in the Multilateral Interception Force in the Persian Gulf. New Zealand's most recent peacekeeping operations experience has been in Timor-Leste, where it initially dispatched almost 10% of its entire defense force. New Zealand participated in Operation Enduring Freedom and has fielded a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan, as well as having deployed a frigate to the Gulf of Oman. In support of the effort to reconstruct Iraq, New Zealand deployed an engineering team to the country.

New Zealand participates in sharing training facilities, personnel exchanges, and joint exercises with the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Tonga, and South Pacific states. It also exercises with its Five-Power Defense Arrangement partners--Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, and Singapore. Due to New Zealand's antinuclear policy, defense cooperation with the U.S., including training exercises, has been significantly restricted since 1986.

==Economy==
New Zealand's economy historically has been based on a foundation of exports from its very efficient agricultural system. Leading agricultural exports include dairy products, meat, forest products, fruit and vegetables, fish, and wool. New Zealand was a direct [[beneficiary]] of many of the reforms achieved under the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, with agriculture in general and the dairy sector in particular enjoying many new trade opportunities.

The country has substantial hydroelectric power and reserves of natural gas, although the largest natural gas condensate and oil field--supplying nearly 75% of the country's hydrocarbons--is expected to be tapped out by 2009. Leading manufacturing sectors are food processing, wood and paper products, and metal fabrication. Service industries, particularly financial, insurance, and business services, form a significant part of New Zealand's economy. As of September 2007 New Zealand had 1,505,100 Internet subscribers, amounting to approximately 65% of New Zealand households, ranking above Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.

Since 1984, government subsidies including for agriculture were eliminated; import regulations liberalized; tariffs unilaterally slashed; exchange rates freely floated; controls on interest rates, wages, and prices removed; and marginal rates of taxation reduced. Tight monetary policy and major efforts to reduce the government budget deficit brought the [[inflation]] rate down from an annual rate of more than 18% in 1987. The restructuring and sale of government-owned enterprises in the 1990s reduced government's role in the economy and permitted the retirement of some public debt. As a result, New Zealand is now one of the most open economies in the world.
[[File:Lyttelton_New_Zealand.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Lyttelton.]]
In the statistical year ending September 2007, the economy grew 2.7%, an increase over the 2.2% growth rate in 2006. Household spending was up 3.4%, and investment in new housing was up 2.2%. The demand for new housing is in part driven by immigration, but the net increase in new arrivals has begun to slow. The net permanent long-term migration inflow to New Zealand in the year ending February 2008 amounted to 4,600, down from a net inflow of 13,200 in 2007. The net outflow to Australia was 29,600 in the year ending February 2008, reaching the highest level since 2001, when it was 30,000. New Zealand did not experience the slowdown in growth seen in many other countries following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fall in overseas share markets. The prolonged period of good economic growth led the unemployment rate to drop from 7.8% in 1999 to 3.2% as of December 2007.

New Zealand's economy has been helped by strong economic relations with Australia. New Zealand and Australia are partners in "Closer Economic Relations" (CER), which allows for free trade in goods and most services. Since 1990, CER has created a single market of more than 22 million people, and this has provided new opportunities for New Zealand exporters. Australia is now the destination of 20% of New Zealand's exports, compared to 14% in 1983. Both sides also have agreed to consider extending CER to product standardization and taxation policy. New Zealand has had a free trade agreement with Singapore since 2001. In July 2005, both countries joined with Chile and Brunei to form a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, liberalizing trade in goods and services between them. In April 2005, New Zealand initialed a free-trade deal with Thailand. In April 2008 New Zealand concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) with China and is negotiating an FTA with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). New Zealand held its first round of the New Zealand-GCC FTA in Wellington in July 2007 with representatives from the Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman).
[[File:New-Zealand-Malaysia-Free-Trade-Agreement.jpg|thumb|330px|New Zealand - [[Malaysia]] Free Trade Agreement.]]
New Zealand's top six trading partners from June 2006-June 2007 included Australia, the United States, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Korea. Australia continued as New Zealand's principal export market, worth $5.3 billion with exports to Australia rising by 6%. The United States and Japan were New Zealand's second- and third-largest export markets, receiving $3.3 billion and $2.6 billion worth of goods, respectively. New Zealand's fourth-largest export destination was China with exports worth $1.4 billion from June 2006 through June 2007.

The U.S. is the second-largest trading partner for New Zealand, with U.S. goods and services accounting for approximately 13% of all imports. With the New Zealand dollar reaching a 24-year high of over U.S. $0.80 in July 2007 (the highest since the New Zealand dollar was floated), there are greater opportunities for U.S. exporters in 2007-2008. New Zealand's total imports from the U.S., as of June 2007, amounted to U.S. $3.3 billion. The market-led economy offers many benefits for U.S. exporters and investors. Investment opportunities exist in chemicals, food preparation, finance, tourism, and forest products, as well as in franchising. The best sales and investment prospects are for whole aircraft and aircraft parts, medical or veterinary instruments, motor vehicles, information technology, hotel and restaurant equipment, telecommunications, tourism, franchising, food processing and packaging, and medical equipment. On the agricultural side, the best prospects are for fresh fruit, snack foods, and soybean meal.

New Zealand welcomes and encourages foreign investment without discrimination. The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) must give consent to foreign investments that would control 25% or more of businesses or property worth more than NZ$100 million. Restrictions and approval requirements also apply to certain investments in land and in the commercial fishing industry. OIO consent is based on a national interest determination. Foreign buyers of land can be required to report periodically on their compliance with the terms of the government's consent to their purchase. The OIO, part of Land Information New Zealand, took over the functions of the Overseas Investment Commission in August 2005. Full remittance of profits and capital is permitted through normal banking channels. As of March 2007, the U.S. accounted for 12% of all foreign direct investment in New Zealand, amounting to U.S. $7.76 billion.

A number of U.S. companies have subsidiary branches in New Zealand. Many operate through local agents, and some are in association in joint ventures. The American Chamber of Commerce is active in New Zealand, with its main office in Auckland.
*GDP (September 2007, current prices): U.S. $131 billion; (1996 prices) U.S. $103 billion.
*Real annual GDP growth rate (September 2007, current prices): 2.7%.
*Per capita income (September 2007): U.S. $30,994; (1996 prices) U.S. $24,545.
*Exchange rate (average for Jan. to May 2008): U.S. $1 = NZ $1.2646 (U.S. $0.79 = NZ $1).
*Natural [[resources]]: Timber, natural gas, iron sand, coal.
*Agriculture (4.9% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, forestry products.
*Industry (goods-producing industries 21.5% of GDP, service industries 68.1% of GDP): Types--finance, insurance, and business services; manufacturing; personal and community services; transport and communication; wholesale trade; construction; government administration and defense; fishing, forestry, and mining; electricity, gas, and water.
*Trade (September 2007): Exports to U.S.--$3.572 billion: frozen beef, casein, whey, timber, sheep meat, wine, unwrought aluminum, cheese, and butter. Imports from U.S.--$3.212 billion: consisting primarily of aircraft petroleum oils (crude), medical or veterinary instruments, motor vehicles, computers, aircraft parts, machinery, turbojets, insecticides, and telephone equipment. Major trading partners (rank ordered)--Australia, United States, Japan, People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Korea.

==Sport==
[[Rugby union]] is the major sport in New Zealand, and the national team, the [[All Blacks]], are widely considered the greatest rugby union team.
The New Zealand [[cricket]] team (known as "The Black Caps") are currently seventh in world standings in tests and 4th in one day internationals.
New Zealand is also noted for its [[Hockey]] (The Black Sticks), [[Netball]] (The Silver Ferns) and mens Softball (Black Sox) teams. [[Scott Dixon]] became in 2008 the first New Zealand driver to win an Indy 500 race and has gone on to win 2 IRL Championships.

==International Rankings (2007)==
====Political and economic rankings====
*Political freedom ratings[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_2006] - Free; political rights and civil liberties both rated 1 (the highest score available)
*Press freedom<ref>Reporters Without Borders. [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19391 Index methodology]</ref> - 19th freest, at 5.00
*GDP per capita - 27th highest, at I$24,769
*Human Development Index - 20th highest, at 0.933
*Income Equality - 54th most equal, at 36.2 (Gini Index)
*Literacy Rate - Equal first, at 99.9%
*Unemployment rate - 42nd lowest, at 3.8% <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html CIA World Factbook]</ref>
*Corruption - 1st equal least corrupt, at 9.6 on index
*Economic Freedom - 9th equal freest, at 1.84 on index

====Health rankings====
*Fertility rate- 140th most fertile, at 1.79 per woman
*Birth rate - 140th most births, at 13.90 per 1000 people
*Infant mortality - 192nd most deaths, at 5.85 per 1000 live births
*Death rate - 115th highest death rate, at 7.52 per 1000 people
*Life Expectancy - 22nd highest, at 78.81 years
*Suicide rate - 35th highest suicide rate, at 19.8 for males and 4.2 for females per 100,000 people
*HIV/AIDS rate - 149th most cases, at 0.10%

====Other rankings====
*CO2 emissions - 42nd highest emissions, at 8.7 tonnes per capita
*Electricity Consumption - 48th highest consumption of electricity, at 37,030,000,000 kWh
*Broadband Internet access - 22nd highest uptake in OECD, at 11.7%
*Beer consumption - 16th highest, at 77.0 litres per capita
*Environmental Performance Index - Comprising; Environmental health, air quality, water resources, biodiversity and habitat, productive natural resources, sustainable energy - 1st out of 80 countries, at 88.0/100[14]

==Famous New Zealanders==
[[File:Sir Edmund Hillary.jpg|thumb|Sir Edmund Hillary.]]
*[[Sir Edmund Hillary]] - With Tensing Norgay, one of the first men to climb [[Mount Everest]]
*[[Ernest Rutherford|Lord Ernest Rutherford]] - Discovered that [[Atoms]] have a [[nucleus]] and was the first [[physicist]] to split the [[atom]]
*[[Peter Jackson]] - [[Director]] of the [[The Lord of the Rings film trilogy|''The Lord of the Rings'' film trilogy]]
*[[Harold Gillies]] - Widely regarded as the father of [[Plastic Surgery]]
*[[Sam Neill]] - [[Actor]]
*[[Lucy Lawless]] - [[Actress]]
*[[Bill "Willie" Apiata]] - NZ SAS Corporal and recipient of the [[Victoria Cross]]
*[[Burt Monro]] - Motorcycle racer and subject of the film The World's Fastest Indian
*[[Bruce McLaren]] - Car Designer and Inventor, founder of the McLaren-Mercedes Formula 1 Racing Team
*[[Anna Paquin]] - Youngest person to ever win an [[Academy Award]]
*[[Richard Pearse]] - Thought to have flown before the [[Wright Brothers]] however this is disputed
*[[Scott Dixon]] - Winner of the [[Indy 500]] in 2008

==See also==
* [[Maori]]

==External links==
* Ministry for Culture and Heritage[http://www.mch.govt.nz/]
* Tourism New Zealand[http://www.newzealand.com/]
* New Zealand travel guide from Wikitravel[http://wikitravel.org/en/New_Zealand]

==Bibliography==
* Belich, James. ''The Victorian interpretation of racial conflict: the Maori, the British, and the New Zealand wars'' (1989) [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=subject;sort=author;q1=New%20Zealand%20--%20History%20--%20New%20Zealand%20Wars%2C%201843-1847 in ACLS E-Book]
* Harding, Paul, Carolyn Bain, and Neal Bedford. ''Lonely Planet New Zealand'' (2002) guide book [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Zealand-Paul-Harding/dp/1740591968/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228220806&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Rice, Geoffrey W. ''The Oxford History of New Zealand'' (1993), standard scholarly history
* Salt, Laura. ''Oxford New Zealand Encyclopedia'' (1965)
* Sinclair, Keith. ''The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand'' (1998)
* Sinclair, Keith. ''A History of New Zealand'' (1960) 320 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/433660?title=A%20History%20of%20New%20Zealand%20%20(1960) online edition]
* Wood, Frederick Lloyd Whitfield. ''The New Zealand people at war: political and external affairs'' (1958), Second World War [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb03920.0001.001 ACLS E-Book]
* Wright, Harrison M. ''New Zealand, 1769-1840: early years of western contact'' (1959) [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=subject;sort=author;q1=New%20Zealand%20--%20History%20--%20To%201840 in ACLS E-Book]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Islands]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

New Zealand

2011-08-14T03:10:59Z

Aortuso: Adding a little

{{Country
|name =''Aotearoa New Zealand''
|map =New zealand rel 2006.jpg
|flag =Flag of New Zealand.png
|arms =Arms of New Zealand.png
|capital =Wellington
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =English, Maori, New Zealand Sign Language
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =John Key
|pm-raw =
|area =150,871 sq. miles
|pop =4,252,000
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$117.696 billion
|gdp-year =2008
|gdp-pc =$27,785
|currency =New Zealand Dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''New Zealand''' ([[Maori]]: '''Aotearoa''' - translates as ''Land of the Long White Cloud'') is an independent country in the southern [[Pacific Ocean]] comprising two large islands (North Island and South Island) and numerous smaller islands, most notably Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands. It is named after Zeeland, a province of the Netherlands. The Realm of New Zealand also includes the Cook Islands and Niue, which are self-governing, but in 'free association'; Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency (New Zealand's Antarctic territorial claim). New Zealand is notable for its geographic isolation, being separated from Australia to the northwest by the Tasman Sea, approximately 2000 kilometers (1250 miles) across. Its closest neighbours to the north are [[New Caledonia]], [[Fiji]], and [[Tonga]]. [[Wellington]] is the capital of New Zealand; [[Auckland]] is the largest city.

==People==
[[File:Maori people New Zealand.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Maori people.]]
Most of the 4 million New Zealanders are of British Isles origin. About 15% claim Maori descent although it is now assumed, but not confirmed, that there are now no full blooded Maori's left. Nearly 76% of the people, including a large majority of Maori, live on North Island. In addition, 265,974 Pacific peoples live in New Zealand, primarily in Auckland. During the late 1870s, natural increase permanently replaced immigration as the chief contributor to population growth and accounted for more than 75% of population growth in the 20th century. Nearly 85% of New Zealand's population lives in urban areas (with over one million in Auckland alone), where the service and manufacturing industries are growing rapidly. New Zealanders colloquially refer to themselves as "Kiwis," after the country's native bird.
*Population: 4,267,678.
*Annual growth rate (since December 2006): 0.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 64.8%; Maori (or part Maori) 14%; Asian 8.8%; other Polynesian Pacific peoples 6.6%; Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African 0.9%; other 10.7%. (Note: People can choose to identify with more than one ethnic group.)
*Religions: Christian 50%, no religion 32.3%, not stated 7.3%, Hindu 1.6%, Buddhist 1.3%, Islam/Muslim 0.9%, Jewish 0.2%, Spiritualism/New Age 0.5%, other 0.6%.
*Languages: English, Maori, New Zealand Sign Language.
*Education: Years compulsory--ages 5-16. Attendance--100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (December 2006)--5.1/1,000. Life expectancy (December 2006)--males 77.9 yrs., females 81.9 yrs.
*Work force: 75.2% of 15-64 year olds or 2.057 million. Services and government--59%; manufacturing and construction--32%; agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining--8.9%.

==History==
Archaeological evidence indicates that New Zealand was populated by fishing and hunting people of East Polynesian ancestry perhaps 1,000 years before Europeans arrived. Known to some scholars as the Moa-hunters, they may have merged with later waves of Polynesians who, according to Maori tradition, arrived between 952 and 1150. Some of the Maoris called their new homeland "Aotearoa," usually translated as "land of the long white cloud."

In 1642, Abel Tasman, a Dutch navigator, made the first recorded European sighting of New Zealand and sketched sections of the two main islands' west coasts. British explorer [[James Cook]] thoroughly explored the coastline during three South Pacific voyages beginning in 1769. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, lumbering, seal hunting, and [[whaling]] attracted a few European settlers to New Zealand. In 1840, the British established their sovereignty and signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Maori chiefs.
[[File:Paparoa National Bank building former New Zealand.jpg|thumb|left|270px|Former Paparoa National Bank building.]]
In the same year, British settlers began the colonization process. Expanding British settlement led to conflict with Maori, most notably in the Maori land wars of the 1860s. British and colonial forces eventually overcame determined Maori resistance. During this period, many Maori died from disease and warfare, much of it intertribal.

Constitutional government began to develop in the 1850s. In 1867, the Maori won the right to a certain number of reserved seats in parliament. During this period, the livestock industry began to expand, and the foundations of New Zealand's modern economy took shape. By the end of the 19th century, improved transportation facilities made possible a great overseas trade in wool, meat, and dairy products.

By the 1890s, parliamentary government along democratic lines was well-established, and New Zealand's social institutions assumed their present form. Women received the right to vote in national elections in 1893. The turn of the century brought sweeping social reforms that built the foundation for New Zealand's version of the welfare state.

The Maori gradually recovered from population decline and, through interaction and intermarriage with settlers and missionaries, adopted much of European culture. In recent decades, Maori have become increasingly urbanized and have become more politically active and culturally assertive.

New Zealand was declared a dominion by a royal proclamation in 1907. It achieved full internal and external autonomy by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1947, although this merely formalized a situation that had existed for many years.

== Government ==
[[File:Municipal Offices Public Library Timaru NZ PD.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Municipal Offices, Public Library, Timaru.]]
New Zealand is a parliamentary [[democracy]]. Under the Royal Titles Act (1953), Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of New Zealand and is represented as head of state by the Governor-General, currently Anand Satyanand.

New Zealand is the only country in the world in which all the highest offices in the land have been occupied simultaneously by women: Queen [[Elizabeth II]], Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright, Prime Minister [[Helen Clark]], Speaker of the House of Representatives Margaret Wilson and Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias were all in office between March 2005 and August 2006.
New Zealand's first woman prime minister was Jenny Shipley, however Helen Clark lays claim to be the first ''elected'' woman prime minister, as Jenny Shipley was appointed to the role by the National Party Caucus to replace the Prime Minister of the time, Jim Bolger.

The New Zealand Parliament<ref>[http://www.govt.nz/ Official government site]</ref> has only one chamber, the House of Representatives, which usually seats 120 Members of Parliament. Parliamentary general elections are held every three years under a form of [[proportional representation]] called Mixed Member Proportional. The 2005 General Election created an 'overhang' of one extra seat, occupied by the Māori Party, due to that party winning more seats in electorates than the number of seats its proportion of the party vote would have given it. The position of Prime Minister falls to the leader of the majority party in Parliament and may be changed at any time at the discretion of the majority party Caucus.
[[Image:Auckland - New Zealand.jpg|thumb|300px|Auckland]]
There is no written constitution: the Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional structure. The rules regulating the running of the country are primarily constitutional conventions which are not codified and subject to evolution. Despite this unconventional approach to governance New Zealand is yet to have any major constitutional crises. The Governor-General has the power to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers and to dissolve Parliament. The Governor-General also chairs the Executive Council, which is a formal committee consisting of all ministers of the Crown. Members of the Executive Council are required to be Members of Parliament, and most are also in Cabinet. Cabinet is the most senior policy-making body and is led by the Prime Minister, who is also, by convention, the Parliamentary leader of the governing party or coalition.

The current Prime Minister is [[John Key]], leader of the National Party. Following the 8th of November 2008 election, the National Party signed confidence and supply agreements with the ACT, the Maori Party and United Future, allowing them to form a government. This entitled some members of the above parties to ministerial positions outside of cabinet.

The Leader of the Opposition, is Labour Party leader Phil Goff. The Green party and the Progressive party are both also in in opposition.

The highest court in New Zealand is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. This was established in 2004 following the passage of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which also abolished the option to appeal to the Privy Council in London. The current Chief Justice is Dame Sian Elias. New Zealand's judiciary also includes the High Court, which deals with serious criminal offences, civil matters and judicial review. The court system also includes the Court of Appeal, and subordinate courts.

The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second. The defence forces hold commissions and warrants from the Queen, signed on her behalf by her representative the Governor General. However command of the armed forces is by order of Parliament, rather than by the Queen.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Chief of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--His Excellency Honourable Anand Satyanand
*Prime Minister--Rt. Hon. John Key
*Foreign Minister--Rt. Hon. Murray McCully
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Rosemary Banks

===Political Conditions===
[[File:Wellington New Zealand WC.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Wellington, the capital city.]]
The traditionally conservative National Party and left-leaning Labour Party have dominated New Zealand political life since a Labour government came to power in 1935. During its first 14 years in office, the Labour Party implemented a broad array of social and economic legislation, including comprehensive social security, a large-scale public works program, a 40-hour workweek, a minimum basic wage, and compulsory unionism. The National Party won control of the government in 1949 and adopted many welfare measures instituted by the Labour Party. Except for two brief periods of Labour governments in 1957-60 and 1972-75, National held power until 1984. After regaining control in 1984, the Labour government instituted a series of radical market-oriented reforms in response to New Zealand's mounting external debt.

At this time, the Labour government also enacted anti-nuclear legislation that effectively brought about New Zealand's suspension from the ANZUS security alliance with the United States and Australia. New Zealand's nuclear-free status has widespread support from the New Zealand public. An alleged comment by National Party leader Don Brash in 2004 to a group of American senators that NZ's anti-nuclear status would be 'gone by lunchtime' caused a minor political scandal.

In October 1990, the National Party again formed the government, for the first of three 3-year terms. In 1996, New Zealand inaugurated a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system to elect its parliament. The system was designed to increase representation of smaller parties in parliament and appears to have done so in the MMP elections to date. Since 1996, neither the National nor the Labour Party has had an absolute majority in parliament, and for all but one of those years, the government has been a minority one. The Labour Party won elections in November 1999 and again in July 2002. In 2002 Labour formed a coalition, minority government with the Progressive Coalition, an economically left-wing but socially conservative party holding two seats in parliament. The government relied on support from the centrist United Future Party to pass legislation.

Following a narrow victory in the September 2005 general elections, Labour formed a coalition with the one-seat Progressive Party. The government also entered into limited support agreements with the United Future New Zealand and NZ First Parties, whose leaders were respectively given the Revenue and Foreign Affairs ministerial positions outside of the cabinet. This gave Labour an effective one-seat majority with which to pass legislation in parliament. Labour also secured an assurance from the Green Party that it will abstain from a vote of confidence against the government. The 2005 elections saw the new Maori Party win four out of the seven reserved Maori seats. There are 121 current members of parliament, the additional seat the result of an overhang from 2005 elections. There are currently two independent members of parliament (MPs): a former Labour Party MP and a former United Future New Zealand MP, both of whom left their respective parties in 2007. The latest general election was held in November 2008 and resulted in a Minority National government led by John Key. The next election will be held in November 2011.

===Foreign Policy===
New Zealand maintains a strong profile on environmental protection, human rights and free trade, particularly in agriculture.

New Zealand is a member of the following geo-political organisations: APEC, East Asia Summit, Commonwealth of Nations, OECD and the [[United Nations]]. It has signed up to a number of free trade agreements, most recently with [[Japan]], of which the most important is Closer Economic Relations with Australia.

For its first hundred years, New Zealand followed the United Kingdom's lead on foreign policy. In declaring war on [[Germany]] on 3 September 1939, Prime Minister Michael Savage proclaimed "Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand". Post WWII ties with America strengthened, but unlike close neighbour Australia, have never done so to the point that they may be considered stronger than the ties to the UK.

New Zealand has traditionally worked closely with Australia, whose foreign policy followed a similar historical trend. In turn, many Pacific Islands such as Western Samoa have looked to New Zealand's lead.

The relationship between American and New Zealand was weakened by the disappointment with the [[Vietnam War]], the sinking of the [[Greenpeace]] vessel ''Rainbow Warrior'' by [[France]], and by disagreements over environmental and agricultural trade issues and New Zealand's nuclear-free policy.

Conversely, New Zealand sent troops to [[Afghanistan]] to aid the American Army.

===National Security===
[[File:Boer War Memorial, Dunedin, NZ soldiers.JPG|thumb|400px|Boer War Memorial, Dunedin.]]
New Zealand is a party to the ANZUS security treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the US. While the treaty was once fully mutual between Australia, New Zealand and the United States, this is no longer the case. Since February 1985, New Zealand has refused nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships access to its ports. In 1986, the United States announced that it was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear armed or propelled ships. This legislation remains a source of contention and the basis for the United States' continued suspension of treaty obligations to New Zealand. Due to the US Navy policy of refusing to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear arms on any US Navy ship, the only US naval ships to enter NZ waters since that time have been unarmed auxiliary units with some exceptions where the US State Department have over-ruled the Naval policy for specific ships on visits.

In addition to the various wars between Maori tribes, and between the British settlers and certain tribes, New Zealand has fought in the Second Boer War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency (and committed troops, fighters and bombers to the subsequent confrontation with Indonesia), the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the Afghanistan War. New Zealand refused to participate in the Iraq War without UN sanction. However, they sent a unit of army engineers to help rebuild Iraqi infrastructure for one year following the invasion.

The New Zealand military has three branches: the New Zealand Army, the Royal New Zealand Navy, and the Royal New Zealand Air Force. New Zealand considers its own national defence needs to be modest; it dismantled its air combat capability in 2001. New Zealand has contributed forces to recent regional and global peacekeeping missions, including those in Cyprus, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Sinai, Angola, Cambodia, the Iran/Iraq border, Bougainville and East Timor.

New Zealand has three defense policy objectives--defend New Zealand against low-level threats, contribute to regional security, and play a part in global security efforts. New Zealand has considered its own national defense needs to be modest. Its defense budget generally has provided for selected upgrades in equipment. Shortly after winning the 1999 election, the Labour government canceled a lease-to-buy agreement with the U.S. for 28 F-16 aircraft. However, Labour did embark on a significant defense upgrade and acquisition plan. All three services have benefited from the upgrades/acquisitions. In 2001, the government contracted to purchase 105 LAVIIIs for U.S. $300 million, with delivery completed in 2005. The Army also purchased 321 Light Operational Vehicles to make its forces more mobile. In 2002, New Zealand announced planned upgrades of its P3 and C-130 Hercules aircraft, and purchased two Boeing 757 aircraft for U.S. $100 million. In 2006 New Zealand contracted with NH Industries to purchase eight NH-90 aircraft to start delivery in 2009. In 2007 they entered an agreement to purchase 12 A-109 light helicopters from Agosta to also start delivery in 2009. The P-3s, C-130s, and B-757s are all currently being upgraded/modified. In 2007, the Navy began accepting delivery of the U.S. $250 million Project Protector program consisting of one multi-role vessel (MRV), two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs), and four inshore patrol vessels (IPVs).

In May 2001, the government announced it was scrapping its combat air force. New Zealand states it maintains a "credible minimum force," although critics maintain that the country's defense forces have fallen below this standard. New Zealand still maintains the fleet of A-4 Skyhawk jets and Aerromacche jets left over from the scrapping of its combat air force. Its attempts to sell the jets have thus far failed.

With a claimed area of direct strategic concern that extends from Australia to Southeast Asia to the South Pacific, New Zealand necessarily places substantial reliance on its defense relationship with other countries, in particular Australia. However, acknowledging the need to improve its defense capabilities, the government in 2005 announced the Defense Sustainability Initiative allocating an additional NZ$4.6 billion (U.S. $3.19 billion) over 10 years to modernize the country's defense equipment and infrastructure and increase its military personnel. The funding represented a 51% increase in defense spending since the Labour government took office in 1999.

New Zealand is an active participant in multilateral peacekeeping. It has taken a leading role in trying to bring peace, reconciliation, and reconstruction to the Solomon Islands and the neighboring island of Bougainville. New Zealand maintains a contingent in the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers and has contributed to UN peacekeeping operations in Angola, Cambodia, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia. It also participated in the Multilateral Interception Force in the Persian Gulf. New Zealand's most recent peacekeeping operations experience has been in Timor-Leste, where it initially dispatched almost 10% of its entire defense force. New Zealand participated in Operation Enduring Freedom and has fielded a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan, as well as having deployed a frigate to the Gulf of Oman. In support of the effort to reconstruct Iraq, New Zealand deployed an engineering team to the country.

New Zealand participates in sharing training facilities, personnel exchanges, and joint exercises with the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Tonga, and South Pacific states. It also exercises with its Five-Power Defense Arrangement partners--Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, and Singapore. Due to New Zealand's antinuclear policy, defense cooperation with the U.S., including training exercises, has been significantly restricted since 1986.

==Economy==
New Zealand's economy historically has been based on a foundation of exports from its very efficient agricultural system. Leading agricultural exports include dairy products, meat, forest products, fruit and vegetables, fish, and wool. New Zealand was a direct [[beneficiary]] of many of the reforms achieved under the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, with agriculture in general and the dairy sector in particular enjoying many new trade opportunities.

The country has substantial hydroelectric power and reserves of natural gas, although the largest natural gas condensate and oil field--supplying nearly 75% of the country's hydrocarbons--is expected to be tapped out by 2009. Leading manufacturing sectors are food processing, wood and paper products, and metal fabrication. Service industries, particularly financial, insurance, and business services, form a significant part of New Zealand's economy. As of September 2007 New Zealand had 1,505,100 Internet subscribers, amounting to approximately 65% of New Zealand households, ranking above Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.

Since 1984, government subsidies including for agriculture were eliminated; import regulations liberalized; tariffs unilaterally slashed; exchange rates freely floated; controls on interest rates, wages, and prices removed; and marginal rates of taxation reduced. Tight monetary policy and major efforts to reduce the government budget deficit brought the [[inflation]] rate down from an annual rate of more than 18% in 1987. The restructuring and sale of government-owned enterprises in the 1990s reduced government's role in the economy and permitted the retirement of some public debt. As a result, New Zealand is now one of the most open economies in the world.
[[File:Lyttelton_New_Zealand.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Lyttelton.]]
In the statistical year ending September 2007, the economy grew 2.7%, an increase over the 2.2% growth rate in 2006. Household spending was up 3.4%, and investment in new housing was up 2.2%. The demand for new housing is in part driven by immigration, but the net increase in new arrivals has begun to slow. The net permanent long-term migration inflow to New Zealand in the year ending February 2008 amounted to 4,600, down from a net inflow of 13,200 in 2007. The net outflow to Australia was 29,600 in the year ending February 2008, reaching the highest level since 2001, when it was 30,000. New Zealand did not experience the slowdown in growth seen in many other countries following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fall in overseas share markets. The prolonged period of good economic growth led the unemployment rate to drop from 7.8% in 1999 to 3.2% as of December 2007.

New Zealand's economy has been helped by strong economic relations with Australia. New Zealand and Australia are partners in "Closer Economic Relations" (CER), which allows for free trade in goods and most services. Since 1990, CER has created a single market of more than 22 million people, and this has provided new opportunities for New Zealand exporters. Australia is now the destination of 20% of New Zealand's exports, compared to 14% in 1983. Both sides also have agreed to consider extending CER to product standardization and taxation policy. New Zealand has had a free trade agreement with Singapore since 2001. In July 2005, both countries joined with Chile and Brunei to form a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, liberalizing trade in goods and services between them. In April 2005, New Zealand initialed a free-trade deal with Thailand. In April 2008 New Zealand concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) with China and is negotiating an FTA with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). New Zealand held its first round of the New Zealand-GCC FTA in Wellington in July 2007 with representatives from the Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman).
[[File:New-Zealand-Malaysia-Free-Trade-Agreement.jpg|thumb|330px|New Zealand - [[Malaysia]] Free Trade Agreement.]]
New Zealand's top six trading partners from June 2006-June 2007 included Australia, the United States, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Korea. Australia continued as New Zealand's principal export market, worth $5.3 billion with exports to Australia rising by 6%. The United States and Japan were New Zealand's second- and third-largest export markets, receiving $3.3 billion and $2.6 billion worth of goods, respectively. New Zealand's fourth-largest export destination was China with exports worth $1.4 billion from June 2006 through June 2007.

The U.S. is the second-largest trading partner for New Zealand, with U.S. goods and services accounting for approximately 13% of all imports. With the New Zealand dollar reaching a 24-year high of over U.S. $0.80 in July 2007 (the highest since the New Zealand dollar was floated), there are greater opportunities for U.S. exporters in 2007-2008. New Zealand's total imports from the U.S., as of June 2007, amounted to U.S. $3.3 billion. The market-led economy offers many benefits for U.S. exporters and investors. Investment opportunities exist in chemicals, food preparation, finance, tourism, and forest products, as well as in franchising. The best sales and investment prospects are for whole aircraft and aircraft parts, medical or veterinary instruments, motor vehicles, information technology, hotel and restaurant equipment, telecommunications, tourism, franchising, food processing and packaging, and medical equipment. On the agricultural side, the best prospects are for fresh fruit, snack foods, and soybean meal.

New Zealand welcomes and encourages foreign investment without discrimination. The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) must give consent to foreign investments that would control 25% or more of businesses or property worth more than NZ$100 million. Restrictions and approval requirements also apply to certain investments in land and in the commercial fishing industry. OIO consent is based on a national interest determination. Foreign buyers of land can be required to report periodically on their compliance with the terms of the government's consent to their purchase. The OIO, part of Land Information New Zealand, took over the functions of the Overseas Investment Commission in August 2005. Full remittance of profits and capital is permitted through normal banking channels. As of March 2007, the U.S. accounted for 12% of all foreign direct investment in New Zealand, amounting to U.S. $7.76 billion.

A number of U.S. companies have subsidiary branches in New Zealand. Many operate through local agents, and some are in association in joint ventures. The American Chamber of Commerce is active in New Zealand, with its main office in Auckland.
*GDP (September 2007, current prices): U.S. $131 billion; (1996 prices) U.S. $103 billion.
*Real annual GDP growth rate (September 2007, current prices): 2.7%.
*Per capita income (September 2007): U.S. $30,994; (1996 prices) U.S. $24,545.
*Exchange rate (average for Jan. to May 2008): U.S. $1 = NZ $1.2646 (U.S. $0.79 = NZ $1).
*Natural [[resources]]: Timber, natural gas, iron sand, coal.
*Agriculture (4.9% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, forestry products.
*Industry (goods-producing industries 21.5% of GDP, service industries 68.1% of GDP): Types--finance, insurance, and business services; manufacturing; personal and community services; transport and communication; wholesale trade; construction; government administration and defense; fishing, forestry, and mining; electricity, gas, and water.
*Trade (September 2007): Exports to U.S.--$3.572 billion: frozen beef, casein, whey, timber, sheep meat, wine, unwrought aluminum, cheese, and butter. Imports from U.S.--$3.212 billion: consisting primarily of aircraft petroleum oils (crude), medical or veterinary instruments, motor vehicles, computers, aircraft parts, machinery, turbojets, insecticides, and telephone equipment. Major trading partners (rank ordered)--Australia, United States, Japan, People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Korea.

==Sport==
[[Rugby union]] is the major sport in New Zealand, and the national team, the [[All Blacks]], are widely considered the greatest rugby union team.
The New Zealand [[cricket]] team (known as "The Black Caps") are currently seventh in world standings in tests and 4th in one day internationals.
New Zealand is also noted for its [[Hockey]] (The Black Sticks), [[Netball]] (The Silver Ferns) and mens Softball (Black Sox) teams. [[Scott Dixon]] became in 2008 the first New Zealand driver to win an Indy 500 race and has gone on to win 2 IRL Championships.

==International Rankings (2007)==
====Political and economic rankings====
*Political freedom ratings[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_2006] - Free; political rights and civil liberties both rated 1 (the highest score available)
*Press freedom<ref>Reporters Without Borders. [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19391 Index methodology]</ref> - 19th freest, at 5.00
*GDP per capita - 27th highest, at I$24,769
*Human Development Index - 20th highest, at 0.933
*Income Equality - 54th most equal, at 36.2 (Gini Index)
*Literacy Rate - Equal first, at 99.9%
*Unemployment rate - 42nd lowest, at 3.8% <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html CIA World Factbook]</ref>
*Corruption - 1st equal least corrupt, at 9.6 on index
*Economic Freedom - 9th equal freest, at 1.84 on index

====Health rankings====
*Fertility rate- 140th most fertile, at 1.79 per woman
*Birth rate - 140th most births, at 13.90 per 1000 people
*Infant mortality - 192nd most deaths, at 5.85 per 1000 live births
*Death rate - 115th highest death rate, at 7.52 per 1000 people
*Life Expectancy - 22nd highest, at 78.81 years
*Suicide rate - 35th highest suicide rate, at 19.8 for males and 4.2 for females per 100,000 people
*HIV/AIDS rate - 149th most cases, at 0.10%

====Other rankings====
*CO2 emissions - 42nd highest emissions, at 8.7 tonnes per capita
*Electricity Consumption - 48th highest consumption of electricity, at 37,030,000,000 kWh
*Broadband Internet access - 22nd highest uptake in OECD, at 11.7%
*Beer consumption - 16th highest, at 77.0 litres per capita
*Environmental Performance Index - Comprising; Environmental health, air quality, water resources, biodiversity and habitat, productive natural resources, sustainable energy - 1st out of 80 countries, at 88.0/100[14]

==Famous New Zealanders==
[[File:Sir Edmund Hillary.jpg|thumb|Sir Edmund Hillary.]]
*[[Sir Edmund Hillary]] - With Tensing Norgay, one of the first men to climb [[Mount Everest]]
*[[Ernest Rutherford|Lord Ernest Rutherford]] - Discovered that [[Atoms]] have a [[nucleus]] and was the first [[physicist]] to split the [[atom]]
*[[Peter Jackson]] - [[Director]] of the [[The Lord of the Rings film trilogy|''The Lord of the Rings'' film trilogy]]
*[[Harold Gillies]] - Widely regarded as the father of [[Plastic Surgery]]
*[[Sam Neill]] - [[Actor]]
*[[Lucy Lawless]] - [[Actress]]
*[[Bill "Willie" Apiata]] - NZ SAS Corporal and recipient of the [[Victoria Cross]]
*[[Burt Monro]] - Motorcycle racer and subject of the film The World's Fastest Indian
*[[Bruce McLaren]] - Car Designer and Inventor, founder of the McLaren-Mercedes Formula 1 Racing Team
*[[Anna Paquin]] - Youngest person to ever win an [[Academy Award]]
*[[Richard Pearse]] - Thought to have flown before the [[Wright Brothers]] however this is disputed
*[[Scott Dixon]] - Winner of the [[Indy 500]] in 2008

==See also==
* [[Maori]]

==External links==
* Ministry for Culture and Heritage[http://www.mch.govt.nz/]
* Tourism New Zealand[http://www.newzealand.com/]
* New Zealand travel guide from Wikitravel[http://wikitravel.org/en/New_Zealand]

==Bibliography==
* Belich, James. ''The Victorian interpretation of racial conflict: the Maori, the British, and the New Zealand wars'' (1989) [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=subject;sort=author;q1=New%20Zealand%20--%20History%20--%20New%20Zealand%20Wars%2C%201843-1847 in ACLS E-Book]
* Harding, Paul, Carolyn Bain, and Neal Bedford. ''Lonely Planet New Zealand'' (2002) guide book [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Zealand-Paul-Harding/dp/1740591968/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228220806&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Rice, Geoffrey W. ''The Oxford History of New Zealand'' (1993), standard scholarly history
* Salt, Laura. ''Oxford New Zealand Encyclopedia'' (1965)
* Sinclair, Keith. ''The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand'' (1998)
* Sinclair, Keith. ''A History of New Zealand'' (1960) 320 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/433660?title=A%20History%20of%20New%20Zealand%20%20(1960) online edition]
* Wood, Frederick Lloyd Whitfield. ''The New Zealand people at war: political and external affairs'' (1958), Second World War [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb03920.0001.001 ACLS E-Book]
* Wright, Harrison M. ''New Zealand, 1769-1840: early years of western contact'' (1959) [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=subject;sort=author;q1=New%20Zealand%20--%20History%20--%20To%201840 in ACLS E-Book]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Islands]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

SWAT

2011-08-14T02:57:18Z

Aortuso: My mistake

'''SWAT''' is an [[acronym]] for '''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics, and is the term that describes a unit of a city [[police]] force or a county [[sheriff]]'s department in the [[United States]] specially equipped and trained to deal with high-risk situations that would be too dangerous for patrol officers to deal with.

The nearest equivalents to SWAT in countries other than the United States are the national [[gendarmerie]]s in various countries in [[Europe]], including the [[France|French]] Gendarmerie and the [[Italy|Italian]] [[carabinieri]]. The key difference is that SWAT is a specialized team of police officers or sheriff's deputies trained in military weapons and infantry assault tactics, while still answerable to a local police chief or sheriff. European gendarmeries exist as separate national police forces. Whilst in Australia they have Special Operations Group and in New Zealand the Special Tactics Group. Both these units worked together during the 2000 Olympics in Sydney.

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]

SWAT

2011-08-14T02:54:37Z

Aortuso:

'''SWAT''' is an [[acronym]] for '''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics, and is the term that describes a unit of a city [[police]] force or a county [[sheriff]]'s department in the [[United States]] specially equipped and trained to deal with high-risk situations that would be too dangerous for patrol officers to deal with.

The nearest equivalents to SWAT in countries other than the United States are the national [[gendarmerie]]s in various countries in [[Europe]], including the [[France|French]] Gendarmerie and the [[Italy|Italian]] [[carabinieri]]. The key difference is that SWAT is a specialized team of police officers or sheriff's deputies trained in military weapons and infantry assault tactics, while still answerable to a local police chief or sheriff. European gendarmeries exist as separate national police forces. Whilst in Australia they have Special Operations Group and in New Zealand the Special Tactics Group. Both these units worked together during the ASEAN conference in Sydney.

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]

SWAT

2011-08-14T02:54:01Z

Aortuso:

'''SWAT''' is an [[acronym]] for '''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics, and is the term that describes a unit of a city [[police]] force or a county [[sheriff]]'s department in the [[United States]] specially equipped and trained to deal with high-risk situations that would be too dangerous for patrol officers to deal with.

The nearest equivalents to SWAT in countries other than the United States are the national [[gendarmerie]]s in various countries in [[Europe]], including the [[France|French]] Gendarmerie and the [[Italy|Italian]] [[carabinieri]]. The key difference is that SWAT is a specialized team of police officers or sheriff's deputies trained in military weapons and infantry assault tactics, while still answerable to a local police chief or sheriff. European gendarmeries exist as separate national police forces. Whilst in Australia they have Special Operations Group and in New Zealand Special Tactics Group. Both these units worked together during the ASEAN conference in Sydney.

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]

SWAT

2011-08-14T02:53:34Z

Aortuso: Adding info

'''SWAT''' is an [[acronym]] for '''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics, and is the term that describes a unit of a city [[police]] force or a county [[sheriff]]'s department in the [[United States]] specially equipped and trained to deal with high-risk situations that would be too dangerous for patrol officers to deal with.

The nearest equivalents to SWAT in countries other than the United States are the national [[gendarmerie]]s in various countries in [[Europe]], including the [[France|French]] Gendarmerie and the [[Italy|Italian]] [[carabinieri]]. The key difference is that SWAT is a specialized team of police officers or sheriff's deputies trained in military weapons and infantry assault tactics, while still answerable to a local police chief or sheriff. European gendarmeries exist as separate national police forces. Whilst in Australia the have Special Operations Group and in New Zealand Special Tactics Group. Both these units worked together during the ASEAN conference in Sydney.

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]

Rugby (sport)

2011-08-05T06:46:17Z

Aortuso: Adding info

'''Rugby''' is a [[football sport]] with two variations, being rugby union and rugby league. According to one source, it is the ninth-most popular sport in the world.<ref>Delaney, Tim, and Madigan, Tim. ''Sports: Why People Love Them!''; University Press of America, Lanham, Md; p. 14, (2009)
[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_leJMTGB3OoC&lpg=PA13&dq=%22most%20popular%20sports%22&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=rugby%20%22most%20popular%20sports%22&f=false]</ref>

==Rugby Union==

'''Rugby Union''' (often simply '''Rugby''') refers to a team sport popular in England, Wales, Scotland, France, Ireland (There is no United Kingdom team), Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Italy, Argentina, the New England States of the US and throughout the South Pacific region. [[American Football]] is derived from it and shares a few similarities. [[Rugby League]] and [[Australian Rules Football]] are also related sports.

====Manner of play====

Two teams of fifteen players (8 forwards and 7 backs) carry, pass, (only backwards or laterally) and kick the ball down the field with the goal of touching the ball down over the opposition's try-line (the equivalent of the end zone in America football). Players may push or tackle an opposition player who is carrying the ball. Once a player carrying the ball is tackled, that player must release the ball and all players who are on their feet may attempt to collect it. The game is played with an oval shaped ball, similar to an American Football, but rounder and slightly larger. The pitch is 100metres (109.36 yards) by 50m (54.64 yards) with an in-goal of between 10 and 20m (Between 10.93 and 21.87 yards).

When minor infringements, such as dropping the ball and propelling it forward (a "knock on") or a forward pass occur, the game is restarted with a "scrum". A scrum consists of the 8 forwards from each team binding onto one another and pushing whilst another, the halfback, puts the ball in the middle and both teams attempt to kick the ball back to their side. When the ball goes out of play, or "into touch", the game is restarted with a lineout, or depending where it went out, a dropkick (Where the ball must be dropped onto the ground before it is kicked, all be it briefly)). A lineout consists of a number of players from each team forming two straight lines a metre apart and a player throwing the ball down the middle. When more serious infringements such as foul play and offsides occur, a penalty is awarded which allows the non-offending team to have a free kick of the ball or to have a shot at goal.

====Scoring====

When the ball is touched down by a ball carrier in his opponents in-goal a "try" is scored. Scoring a try awards 5 points and enables the team to attempt a "conversion." A conversion is taken by kicking the ball from a stationary position on the ground (usually with the help of a kicking tee or a small mound of dirt) over the "crossbar" of the H-shaped posts which awards the team an additional 2 points. A successful penalty kick is worth 3 points. A drop-goal (also worth 3 points) can be taken at any time during the game by dropping the ball on the ground and kicking it over the crossbar.
The term 'try' relates to the scoring team being entitled to have a 'try at goal'. In fact, under the original rules when the sport was in its infancy, no points were awarded for the try itself.

====History====

The game is said to have originated in the 1830s at Rugby School in England. Rugby quickly spread to all of the United Kingdom and France and by the 1880s to the colonies of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. The game was popular in California around the turn of the century. The game split in 1895 over professionalism. The Rugby Union demanded (with varying degrees of effectiveness) complete amateurism for the game; the newly-formed Rugby League allowed players to be paid. Rugby Union remained amateur until 1995. Rugby featured at the Olympics until 1924, with the United States winning the last Olympic medal. A modified version of rugby played with seven players per team (rugby sevens) will feature at the Olympics from 2016 onwards. In 1987 the first world cup was held with New Zealands' All Blacks winning at home. Since then the world cup has been won by Australia (twice) South Africa (twice) and England (once). A notable feature of the world game since the World Cup Era began has been the dominance of the All Blacks between world cups but their inability to win the main prize.

==Rugby League==

'''Rugby League''' (commonly "league") is a sport that is popular in [[Australia]], [[England]] and [[New Zealand]]. It differs from rugby union in its rules, club structure and the typical socio-economic status of its adherents.{{fact}}

====Manner of play====

The game is played between 2 teams of 13 players, comprising of 6 forwards and 7 backs. The principal difference with union is when a player is tackled, the game immediately stops and the defending team must retreat 10 metres. The tackled player then rolls the ball back between his legs and the game continues. The attacking team has a maximum of 6 tackles before the ball must be handed over to the opposition. This rule avoids the need for the often time-consuming struggle for the ball after a tackle in rugby union. Lineouts are replaced by scrums and scrums are not competitive as they are in rugby union. Trys are valued at 4 points and conversions and penalties at two. A drop goal or "field goal" is worth one point.

==References==

<References/>

==See also==
*[[History of rugby]]
*[[Touch football]]
*[[Rugby union]]
*[[Rugby league]]

[[Category:Rugby]]

User talk:Aortuso

2011-08-05T06:30:05Z

Aortuso: /* Christian New Zealander */

A not very tech-savvy Christian Kiwi living in Australia.

Hi all!!
{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:30, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

: Thankyou James for your very prompt welcome!
::No problem. Please sign your comments on talk pages with a <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> from now on. Thanks! Please enjoy contributing to Conservapedia!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:36, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Haha, cheers, like I said not very tech-savvy.--[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 23:40, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::No problem either. You'll learn soon enough. Also, create internal links with brackets, like this: <nowiki>[[George Washington]]</nowiki>. Bold titles like this:<nowiki>'''George Washington'''
</nowiki> and italicize titles like this:<nowiki>''George Washington''</nowiki>. Those are the very basics that you will need to get started. Any other questions, ask!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Christian New Zealander ==

Hi, a fellow Kiwi! There are a couple of us around. Where do you come from? I am originally from Christchurch. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
: Hi Max, always a kiwi but have been living in Australia (like so many of us) for the last 8 years. Grew up just south of you in a place called Omarou. Hope none of your nearest were hurt in the earthquakes. My family, even so far away, certainly felt it.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Oamaru, I know the place well - sort of in-between Christchurch and Dunedin. On the coast there. I live north of Wellington in the Wairapapa now and wasn't around when the earthquake hit. Scared the you know what out of my friends and family still down there! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:30, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I know. Spent a couple of years in Wellington and felt my fair shares of "shakes". One was enough for me.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:36, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::here, put this on your userpage! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT) {{Kiwi}}
::::::: I would if I was not such a wiki dimwit.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:46, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks Max, I am the proud Kiwi, look forward to talking with you. Saw where you are living. Once went to a wedding just outside a place called Greytown in your area[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:52, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::yeah, I live near there. Lots of weddings. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:54, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::At the risk of participating in [[Emotional gambling]] do you fellas think we'll whip the Wallabies tomorrow? I think we should but I am a little worried. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:12, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: I am worried as well. Two reasons. One if we lose I have to deal with gloating Australians. Two, our world cup dreams once again look.................dodgy [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 02:30, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

AE2

2011-08-05T05:30:32Z

Aortuso: add info

[[Image:Aetwo.gif|right|200px]]

'''HMAS AE2''' was an E Class [[submarine]] of the [[Royal Australian Navy]]. It was originally built in the [[UK]] and travelled out to Australia in company with its sister ship '''HMAS AE1'''. In 1915, captained by Lieutenant Commander Henry Hugh Gordon Dacre Stoker D.S.O., R.N., AE2 was the first submarine to successfully penetrate the [[Dardanelles]] and enter the [[Sea of Marmara]], where she was scuttled, during the ill fated allied campaign on the [[Gallipoli]] peninsula in [[Turkey]].

After six days in the Sea of Marmara she was sunk by the Turks and her crew captured.

== References ==

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/ae2.html

[[Category:World War I]]
[[Category:Warships]]

Oval Office

2011-08-05T05:25:18Z

Aortuso: Believe it should be in capitals

[[Image:Bush Oval Office 3.jpg|thumb|200px|right|President George W. Bush at the Oval office. South-facing windows.]]
'''The Oval Office''' is the office of the [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]]. It is located in the [[West Wing]] of the [[White House]].
It was established by President [[William Howard Taft]] in 1909 while expanding President [[Theodore Roosevelt]]'s original "temporary" structure of 1902. In 1933, President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] further expanded the West Wing and moved the Oval Office to the southeast corner. The office measures 34 feet by 27 feet. It was rebuilt by President [[Herbert Hoover]] after the West Wing caught fire in 1929.

== Sources ==
[http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/west-wing/oval-office-history.htm The White House Museum: Oval Office History]

== See also ==
*[[God and the Oval Office]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/ovaloffice.html Life in the Oval Office] Whitehouse.gov

[[Category:United States]][[Category:Buildings]]

Punctuation mark

2011-08-05T05:00:40Z

Aortuso: minor

A '''punctuation mark''' is one of a set of marks or signs used to clarify meaning. This is by indicating separation of words into sentences and clauses and phrases.

Examples of punctuation marks include:

* [[Ampersand]] ('''&''') - Is used to represent conjunction (the use of the word "and").
* [[Apostrophe]] ('''<nowiki>'</nowiki>''') - Indicates possession, or the omission of one or more letters from a word.
* [[Colon]] (''':''') - Used after a word that introduces a series, or an example, or an explanation.
* [[Comma]] (''',''') - Used to separate words or phrases in a sentence.
* [[Ellipsis]] ('''...''') - Used to indicate that part of a sentence or sequence has been omitted.
* [[Exclamation point]] ('''!''') - Used to stress the preceding point, or to show feeling.
* [[Hyphen]] (or dash) ('''-''') - Used to separate the parts of a compound word or noun, or between the syllables of a word when the word has to be divided at the end of a line of text.
* [[Period]] (or full stop) ('''.''') - Used to indicate the end of a declarative sentence to indicate a full stop, or after abbreviations of words.
* [[Question mark]] ('''?''') - Used at the end of a sentence to indicate that a question has been asked.
* [[Quotation mark]] (or inverted commas) (") - Used to attribute the text enclosed within the commas to someone else.
* [[Semicolon]] (''';''') - Used to connect independent clauses; indicates a closer relation than does a period.
* [[Separatrix]] ('''/''') - Used to separate related items of information.
* [[Tilde]] (or swung dash) ('''~''') - Used in text to indicate the omission of a word.

==See also==
*[[Diacritical mark]]

[[category:Linguistics]][[Category:Punctuation]]

Norwegian Sea

2011-08-05T04:58:30Z

Aortuso: clean

The Norwegian Sea is an area of the North [[Atlantic]] Ocean, north of the [[North Sea]], off the coast of Norway. It is believed to hold significant [[petroleum|oil and gas]] reserves and is an important [[fishing]] location.

User talk:Aortuso

2011-08-05T04:53:25Z

Aortuso: /* Christian New Zealander */