Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-12-04T01:00:22Z

CC:

[http://www.example.com link title]==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]



Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" ==

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes a fair way towards answering that.
: There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
: This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

::This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Two questions ==

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
: Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
: But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

: We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Name Change==

I submit only God can issue a Commandment, thus the name should be changed to Rules or something as such. -- [[User:CC|CC]]

Talk:Islam

2008-12-04T00:56:02Z

CC:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

Talk:Agnosticism

2008-12-04T00:43:28Z

CC: /* I should stop editing. */

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::That is the normal way for monotheistic religions, but there is no specific singular deity for polytheistic religions. God should be changed to "god or god's" because this would incorporate religion as a whole and not divide it into the one type. [[User:LearnJjjones|Jjjones]] 21:41, 29 January 2008(EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
"

==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera..."
[[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

== The charity subject ==

''Agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.''

This can't be verified. There are lots of agnostics and atheists who donate to charity because its the right thing to do. I think this line is judgemental, presumptuous. and should be removed. [[user:JSJames|JSJames]] 7:23pm 22 September 2008
: It "can't" be verified? Why not? And did you look at the linked article to see that it ''is'' verified? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== I should stop editing. ==

Because my edits will inevitably be reverted. Does nobody understand that an atheist is not an agnostic? It even says so in the article.I want to make constructive edits but I am thwarted every time.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:I am interested in the distinction between agnostic and atheist. And as a senior admin, I can protect you from being thwarted on this. Shall we work together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Actually he objects because the title of the linked article is atheism and whatever, however, I encourage everyone to read the first line of that article where clearly states it is about both atheists and agnostics. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:41, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::I would very much like that, Ed. The commonly accepted definition of atheist is "one who actively believes that there is no God". An agnostic is, in general, someone who is unsure of the existence of a God. To an atheist, God can never reveal himself because he does not exist. To an agnostic, God can reveal himself, but simply has not done so yet. Agnostics usually subscribe to agnosticism out of unwillingness to acknowledge the superiority of one religion over another. For example, an agnostic might find Christianity appealing, and express a desire to follow the Christian faith, but live among Sikhs and wonder if the Sikh faith is correct. Agnostics may well, and often do, follow the combined teachings of multiple religions and form a perhaps greater sense of morality than any single religion provides. This may also be associated with a greater tendency towards libertarianism, but depending on the circumstances it might also lead to strong conservatism, whereas an atheist is not very likely to subscribe to conservatism even when the circumstances are contradictory. More on this later, maybe, but I do await your reply.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:45, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I completely agree with JZim. --[[User:CC|CC]] 19:42, 03 December 2008 (Est)