Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-16T16:31:43Z

Jtl: name-calling by TK

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I got blocked for writing this, but I stick by it. I don't think complaining about admin abuse is the same as "starting a fight." The fight was started when Aschlafly insulted me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*You were not blocked by Andy Schlafly, but by Karajou. You personal page is nothing but a biased attack, not some intellectual criticism of Schlafly. Your intentions and outlook are clear. You were responsible for being blocked, no one else, and for no other reason than your picking a fight. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, when you start blocking people for disagreeing with you, how are you better than the Taliban?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Obviously online wiki's are not the place for you ''if'' you cannot discern the difference between disagreements, intellectual debate, and going out of your way to provoke. I have no dog in this hunt, other than reading your comments, and Karajou's and the others. I have never shied away from criticizing Andy, or anyone, when I thought it due, but you can (and will) do so without keeping at it to provoke acrimony. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, fortunately for me, then, you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could. Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Separate Complaints About the Poster==
:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with all of this; when someone crosses the line into activism coordinated and aligned with the extremes we may be able to make a judgement then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This was a good debate, and one of the reasons that we '''have''' discussion pages. Debate helps sharpen our awareness of the distinction between positions, and even sometimes what the similarities are. That will help us write better articles on the topics touched on, in the debates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== False accusation by TK ==

At 9:04 am sysop TK left a rather bizarre maasage on my talk page

:''Tea....

:''Do you enjoy it? I like Oolong best of all! Now explain yourself. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:04, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rather puzzled by this, I responded in kind.

::''Yes, tea is nice. I drink it because I find it quite relaxing. I recommend Mate, although it requires the proper equipment to enjoy fully. Thanks for your interest. Nematocyte 04:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

However, shortly afterward I was blocked for "sock puppets", with the following message.

:''Well confession is good for the soul, don't you know? Sorry, but it was the wrong answer, and you and your sock are going on vacation. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

Around the same time a user with zero contributes appears to have been blocked for infinity for "being a sock of nematocyte". I've never heard of this user, and I certainly am not using it as a sock. I work from a series of publically accessable machines, which could potentially explain TK's mistake. However, that doesn't excuse that no attempt was made to check the truth of the matter, or the general lack of civility used by TK. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Are you complaining about a lack of civility to you, Nematocyte? Or to some potentially unknown user who you are "protecting" and fighting for? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, I've never heard of the user and have had no contact with them. It makes no personal difference to me what happens to them. But it would seem the correct thing for you to do would be to apologise to the both of us for your mistake. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well it wasn't a mistake, that is the problem. Suffice to say you are still here, and your statement, based upon nothing factual whatsoever, that no attempt was made to check it out, is false. It is our perogative and charge to protect this site. If mistakes are made, so be it. But it is wrong for anyone to assume we don't check, and aren't doing the best job we can. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::My statement is based on my first hand knowledge of what is going on at my side. Namely, that contrary to your claims, I do not have a sock puppet and never have. As far as I'm aware that's 100% factual. May I ask what "evidence" there was to the contrary, and what measures ''were'' made to check it wasn't a mistake, and the reasoning being your rather cryptic questioning on my talk page? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*My post was to let you know, if you did indeed make the puppet, that we knew about it. That's all. When a user fails to repond in a timely manner, and doesnt even bother to email, that doesn't tend to make us think they are on the up and up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I had gone home for the day, nothing more sinister than that. If it was a matter of timing, what was the "wrong answer" comment about? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*No denial and a talking about tea. Nothing more sinister than that. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::It was hard for me to deny something that I knew nothing about. Remember, all you left on my talk page was a bizarre question about tea, not an accussation. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, my question about what "evidence" there was, and what measures were taken to ensure the veracity of the accussation remain unanswered. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, you owe Conservapedia users a full explanation of what happened. Nematocyte's accusations are heavy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor sysop needs a refresher in net ettiquette ==

I have been on this site for nearly 3 days. I have submitted one article and was in the process of submitting a second article when it was deleted by Ed Poor with no notification. This site's email notification is broken so I can't get an email confirmation sent to me no matter what email address I use so I could not contact him directly. Now I find that my IP is blocked because Ed Poor is upset that I asked for an explanation under his talk comments.

What kind of site is this? Well, as a new user I'm not impressed. I am VERY conservative and a loyal person to the consevative ideology I thought this site was actually a place where openess and conservatism would be respected but I guess I was wrong... [[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

Okay - let me try a different approch - how do you inquire about a sysop that shall remain nameless to ask about an IP block when you can't mention a sysop by name because they think it is a "personal remark"?

Your rule says - "You must be civil. No bullying.
Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t."

You say no bullying but isn't using an IP block bullying in it's own right? It's an honest question that deserves an honest answer....

{{unsigned|PatrioticAmericanCitizen}}

I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I was asking it of Ed Poor without mentioning his name because on two occasions when I tried to obtain an explanation from him about his behaivior, I got an IP block as a result. I understand the "standard practice" reason for IP blocks in general - but deleting or modifying articles (real articles not liberal vandalism type articles) without any discussion whatsoever with the person who created them on any website is wrong. As a new user to the site, I was extremely upset at being treated in this manner. Especially after working very hard to write an article that is keeping within what I felt was the spirit of the type of articles that conservapedia.com would want on their site....I really really really really want to help this site develop if I can - I can't stand the leftward slant on wikipedia. If that particular sysop would have just said something to me before he went and did what he did - this could have been avoided. That's all I'm saying. There, I feel better now :) Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

==I Second This==
For the past couple of days I have spent many hours researching and writing articles about British Comedy of the 50s 60s and 70s. I wrote articles on Carry On Films, and Tony Hancock, one of the all time British Comedy Greats. In doing that, I created articles about Sid James and Kenneth Williams who were in the original Hancock's half hour series along with Hattie Jacques. I spent a long time writing synopses of Hancock episodes, and finding clips. Some of these entries were about 2000 words in length.

I went on to write bios of some of the other Carry on stars including Barbara Windsor and Charles Hawtrey. Ed Poor saw my entry on Hawtrey, which touched on the fact that he was very camp and a noted homosexual, a fact well known and totally uncontraversial. He saw this and not only deleted that article without any discussion whasoever, but then went on to delte the whole body of work, on the grounds that "we dont want a whole load of articles glorifying the homosexual lifestyle". If he had read any of the articles he would have realised that (a) Only Williams and Hawtrey were homosexuals (Williams always claimed he was celibate AND tortured himself for being gay - hardly glorifying it), and (b) Neither Tony Hancock nor Sid James were homosexual, and the other two were women, and (c) The Tony Hancock article was unchanged from when it had been copyedited by Philip Rayment

Interestingly, Ed Poor also removed an article on Hattie Jacques which I had not written, but merely linked to one of my articles from it.

All of this I believe is Abuse. Abuse of Power, and abuse of contributors who contribute their work in good faith. There is a system for Articles for Deletion OR even articles for speedy deletion which Ed Poor seems to be totally disregarding and thus behaving in a completely high-handed and unreasonable and totally arbitrary manner.

The work that I contributed has now disappeared and I do not have any copy of it. I feel totally aggrieved and if one of my work colleagues had behaved in this manner I would be taking out a grievance procedure against him. I would vote that he be suspended from SySop-ship until he learns some modicum of self-control and reasonableness

--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*All contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. Next time, keep a backup copy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: The more important question, I think, is this: do sysops have any sort of responsibility to use an AFD process? I don't mean that we need to have Wikipedia-style bureaucracy here, but I can imagine feeling miffed if you removed a bunch of things I wrote in good faith without at least giving me a chance to defend them. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 20:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*"Feelings" are good. Healthy even. Just so long as they don't take over for logic and intellect. If something isn't appropriate, Administrators have no other obligation than to remove it. Yes, sometimes that is unfair, unfortunately. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the whole point that SeanTheSheep was trying to touch on was that the material was completely uncontroversial, was written in good faith, and deleted unilaterally. That's not unfairness, that's Wikipedia-style bureaucracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*I think the whole point of this, like WP, we have people who don't even know all the facts, and certainly didn't want to learn them, posting their opinions. Especially Sysops, talking about another, ignorant, totally, of the background. Oh well, people think it is their "right" to talk, even if they don't bother to know the facts, so who am I to point out that is wrong? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::And the point about this is that the evidence on which a sensible decision could have been made has been removed. I still want to know on what basis Sysops are granted license to summarily remove articles without discussion. Clearly if someone creates a ''Llama Sex'' article as a spoof or vandal entry then that can be summarily removed, but to remove a bona fide article ''forever'' with no discussion just on the say-so of one person seems to me an illegitimate use of Sysop powers.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 05:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*And that is all well and good, Sean, however Andy has granted us that authority, as the Owner of this site. So, your opinion, which is real to you, and your truth, isn't for the site owner. ''Therefore, in matters here, that decision has already been made, months before you came here.''. For the future, I might suggest, instead of posting here, you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved, better through a private email or IM, that is how we prefer it done here, no matter what your experiences might be with other wiki's. If that fails to gain results, and you still wish to pursue the matter, contact another Sysop and discuss. Finally, failing those methods, post here. Hope this helps. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::So Sysops have the powers to unilaterally remove articles without discussion, and that by your own words "you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved", in other words, do some behind-the-scenes negotiation. The whole process here seems remarkably anti-democratic and un-American in essence. The whole Conservapedia enterprise is beginning to look to me as if it had been imported form some dark recesses of [[George Orwell]]'s imagination.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well you are either incredibly naive, or misinformed. All of the American Congress and politics in this country works like that. Bills are introduced, negotiated behind closed doors, then brought to a public vote, and up until that vote, accomodations and changes are continually made, all in those "dark recesses" you talk about. It seems to work, as we are indeed the oldest enduring Democratic Republic in the entire world. We pride ourselves here at CP at not being like Wikipedia, where possibly good and valuable editors such as yourself, are not called out and subjected to public ridicule by other users, who may or may not have more expertise on the article in question. Is that your idea of American? Disagreements between users are better played out without that public stage, unless and until a resolution cannot be reached. Those prefering it otherwise, I suspect of liking public drama and "pot stirring" which on any site is counter-productive. In any event, I have explained to you how we prefer it to work, so unless and until you contact Ed Poor, and ask for his thinking, no action will be taken on this complaint. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Three points: (1) At least any bill which is introduced gets to be seen and can be discussed by someone, can be discussed in an open forum, and not deleted without trace unilaterally by a group of arbitrarily chosen Sysops. (2) In addiiton, who are you to decide whether or not I would or would not want to be subjected to public ridicule? By submitting my owrk, I open myself to what you call ridicule, however, I call it peer review, and it is the principle on which all Wikis are based, whether you like it or not. That argument is non-sensical and disingenuous (3) When I asked Ed poor for an explanation I was blocked for "arguing".--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 07:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'd wish Andy to take a position here. You, TK, have received much criticism for your harsh actions, comments and threats (usually by self-admitted liberals, I agree). In my humble opinion, you are too quick in some of your actions (blocks, comments). In addition I don't like your threats "you have been warned, next time..." or your "Andy has granted this and that authority". I really don't know what powers you have, but I see only you using them. For example, I don't see Ed Poor behaving like you. More to the point, I don't see Andy behaving like you. It is entirely possible that before every move you make you consult with Andy. But as I said, I'd wish Andy to take a position here. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*What you are actually saying, Leopeo, is that you have seen his expressions before, you don't accept them, and wish it to be stated once again, for drama's sake. Have you looked at the CP guidelines, at all? [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] As for Ed, read the complaints above, he seems to stand accused by others, like I am by you. There is a certain element of user here, who does not like the way the place is run, and wishes it to be more like Wikipedia. I can assure you Conservapedia never will. As for Andy, he reads and sees more here than I ever will, and it is my experience he posts when he wants to. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I have read the Commandments and the Guidelines (while I don't agree with the early-blocking guideline, but that is my problem). I know that Ed too has been accused (and I don't agree with all his actions). But, in my probably biased eyes, your actions and words stand out. I accept and understand how Conservapedia is run. But I certainly would prefer more humility, self control and acceptance of others from you, TK, personally. I apologize of accusing you personally, because you have never done to me anything of those things I accuse you of.
::Funny your comparison to Wikipedia. I thought threats and arbitrary blocking of users were not one of the ways to be different from WP. I am just asking Andy to take a position, he is not obliged to! :-) And for what I know, you may have an agreement with Andy that you are his 'sword', that is his 'hawk' side. But it would be better if it were clearly stated. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. Andy has wielded his sword often, and as you are around longer, will see that. What some take as "threats" are warnings. Some would prefer that we just block them, I prefer to make known to a user when I see them headed in the wrong direction for CP. What you see as "arbitrary" might just not be, unless you had full access to facts. Most everyone who is a Sysop has heard from Andy when someone is blocked for reasons he doesn't like. Likewise, he is a good leader, and spreads around kudos as well. We have disagreed about actions, privately, and respect each other enough to admit our mistakes (on those rare occasions we make them). Conversely, Ed and I agree about 90% of the time as well. I readily admit he uses a more erudite manner, most of the time, than I do. I am blunt and direct, a rather rare commodity in today's world, IMO, and certainly not every one's cup of tea. However, I am fair. Not so much when people are evasive. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::If you are fair, then why do you not answer the questions posed against your integrity in some of the sections above? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 10:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RDre, you have not edited in three weeks or taken part in this discussion, yet appear here to impugn TK's integrity. This may be regarded as incivility and trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It was a valid question, regardless of his edit history; that was an ad hominem comment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Banned from IRC channel ==

TK banned me from the #conservapedia [[IRC]] channel for no apparent reason, and he has declined to offer any explanation:
:Any particular reason you kicked and banned me from #conservapedia? --Jtl 02:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:And what is that reason? --Jtl 02:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be patient. All will be explained, and soon. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Like all those other mysterious big changes you keep talking about that are coming soon? Why won't you just answer the question and explain your actions? --Jtl 02:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
He had two perfectly good opportunities already to give a clue why, and has edited the site since that last question was posed, but he hasn't answered. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. And now what? You posted here? Give me a break. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. "This is where you can report abuse by Sysops." I have no illusions anything will be done, mind you, but you are abusive and I'm reporting it. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== name-calling by TK ==

Now, TK has called me a [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=163885&oldid=163757 "terrorist"]]. ''much'' lesser insults have resulted in bans for other users. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:31, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-16T16:22:48Z

Jtl:

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-16T07:52:20Z

Jtl: Banned from IRC channel

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I got blocked for writing this, but I stick by it. I don't think complaining about admin abuse is the same as "starting a fight." The fight was started when Aschlafly insulted me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*You were not blocked by Andy Schlafly, but by Karajou. You personal page is nothing but a biased attack, not some intellectual criticism of Schlafly. Your intentions and outlook are clear. You were responsible for being blocked, no one else, and for no other reason than your picking a fight. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, when you start blocking people for disagreeing with you, how are you better than the Taliban?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Obviously online wiki's are not the place for you ''if'' you cannot discern the difference between disagreements, intellectual debate, and going out of your way to provoke. I have no dog in this hunt, other than reading your comments, and Karajou's and the others. I have never shied away from criticizing Andy, or anyone, when I thought it due, but you can (and will) do so without keeping at it to provoke acrimony. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, fortunately for me, then, you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could. Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Separate Complaints About the Poster==
:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with all of this; when someone crosses the line into activism coordinated and aligned with the extremes we may be able to make a judgement then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This was a good debate, and one of the reasons that we '''have''' discussion pages. Debate helps sharpen our awareness of the distinction between positions, and even sometimes what the similarities are. That will help us write better articles on the topics touched on, in the debates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== False accusation by TK ==

At 9:04 am sysop TK left a rather bizarre maasage on my talk page

:''Tea....

:''Do you enjoy it? I like Oolong best of all! Now explain yourself. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:04, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rather puzzled by this, I responded in kind.

::''Yes, tea is nice. I drink it because I find it quite relaxing. I recommend Mate, although it requires the proper equipment to enjoy fully. Thanks for your interest. Nematocyte 04:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

However, shortly afterward I was blocked for "sock puppets", with the following message.

:''Well confession is good for the soul, don't you know? Sorry, but it was the wrong answer, and you and your sock are going on vacation. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

Around the same time a user with zero contributes appears to have been blocked for infinity for "being a sock of nematocyte". I've never heard of this user, and I certainly am not using it as a sock. I work from a series of publically accessable machines, which could potentially explain TK's mistake. However, that doesn't excuse that no attempt was made to check the truth of the matter, or the general lack of civility used by TK. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Are you complaining about a lack of civility to you, Nematocyte? Or to some potentially unknown user who you are "protecting" and fighting for? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, I've never heard of the user and have had no contact with them. It makes no personal difference to me what happens to them. But it would seem the correct thing for you to do would be to apologise to the both of us for your mistake. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well it wasn't a mistake, that is the problem. Suffice to say you are still here, and your statement, based upon nothing factual whatsoever, that no attempt was made to check it out, is false. It is our perogative and charge to protect this site. If mistakes are made, so be it. But it is wrong for anyone to assume we don't check, and aren't doing the best job we can. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::My statement is based on my first hand knowledge of what is going on at my side. Namely, that contrary to your claims, I do not have a sock puppet and never have. As far as I'm aware that's 100% factual. May I ask what "evidence" there was to the contrary, and what measures ''were'' made to check it wasn't a mistake, and the reasoning being your rather cryptic questioning on my talk page? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*My post was to let you know, if you did indeed make the puppet, that we knew about it. That's all. When a user fails to repond in a timely manner, and doesnt even bother to email, that doesn't tend to make us think they are on the up and up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I had gone home for the day, nothing more sinister than that. If it was a matter of timing, what was the "wrong answer" comment about? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*No denial and a talking about tea. Nothing more sinister than that. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::It was hard for me to deny something that I knew nothing about. Remember, all you left on my talk page was a bizarre question about tea, not an accussation. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, my question about what "evidence" there was, and what measures were taken to ensure the veracity of the accussation remain unanswered. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, you owe Conservapedia users a full explanation of what happened. Nematocyte's accusations are heavy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor sysop needs a refresher in net ettiquette ==

I have been on this site for nearly 3 days. I have submitted one article and was in the process of submitting a second article when it was deleted by Ed Poor with no notification. This site's email notification is broken so I can't get an email confirmation sent to me no matter what email address I use so I could not contact him directly. Now I find that my IP is blocked because Ed Poor is upset that I asked for an explanation under his talk comments.

What kind of site is this? Well, as a new user I'm not impressed. I am VERY conservative and a loyal person to the consevative ideology I thought this site was actually a place where openess and conservatism would be respected but I guess I was wrong... [[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

Okay - let me try a different approch - how do you inquire about a sysop that shall remain nameless to ask about an IP block when you can't mention a sysop by name because they think it is a "personal remark"?

Your rule says - "You must be civil. No bullying.
Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t."

You say no bullying but isn't using an IP block bullying in it's own right? It's an honest question that deserves an honest answer....

{{unsigned|PatrioticAmericanCitizen}}

I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I was asking it of Ed Poor without mentioning his name because on two occasions when I tried to obtain an explanation from him about his behaivior, I got an IP block as a result. I understand the "standard practice" reason for IP blocks in general - but deleting or modifying articles (real articles not liberal vandalism type articles) without any discussion whatsoever with the person who created them on any website is wrong. As a new user to the site, I was extremely upset at being treated in this manner. Especially after working very hard to write an article that is keeping within what I felt was the spirit of the type of articles that conservapedia.com would want on their site....I really really really really want to help this site develop if I can - I can't stand the leftward slant on wikipedia. If that particular sysop would have just said something to me before he went and did what he did - this could have been avoided. That's all I'm saying. There, I feel better now :) Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

==I Second This==
For the past couple of days I have spent many hours researching and writing articles about British Comedy of the 50s 60s and 70s. I wrote articles on Carry On Films, and Tony Hancock, one of the all time British Comedy Greats. In doing that, I created articles about Sid James and Kenneth Williams who were in the original Hancock's half hour series along with Hattie Jacques. I spent a long time writing synopses of Hancock episodes, and finding clips. Some of these entries were about 2000 words in length.

I went on to write bios of some of the other Carry on stars including Barbara Windsor and Charles Hawtrey. Ed Poor saw my entry on Hawtrey, which touched on the fact that he was very camp and a noted homosexual, a fact well known and totally uncontraversial. He saw this and not only deleted that article without any discussion whasoever, but then went on to delte the whole body of work, on the grounds that "we dont want a whole load of articles glorifying the homosexual lifestyle". If he had read any of the articles he would have realised that (a) Only Williams and Hawtrey were homosexuals (Williams always claimed he was celibate AND tortured himself for being gay - hardly glorifying it), and (b) Neither Tony Hancock nor Sid James were homosexual, and the other two were women, and (c) The Tony Hancock article was unchanged from when it had been copyedited by Philip Rayment

Interestingly, Ed Poor also removed an article on Hattie Jacques which I had not written, but merely linked to one of my articles from it.

All of this I believe is Abuse. Abuse of Power, and abuse of contributors who contribute their work in good faith. There is a system for Articles for Deletion OR even articles for speedy deletion which Ed Poor seems to be totally disregarding and thus behaving in a completely high-handed and unreasonable and totally arbitrary manner.

The work that I contributed has now disappeared and I do not have any copy of it. I feel totally aggrieved and if one of my work colleagues had behaved in this manner I would be taking out a grievance procedure against him. I would vote that he be suspended from SySop-ship until he learns some modicum of self-control and reasonableness

--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*All contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. Next time, keep a backup copy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: The more important question, I think, is this: do sysops have any sort of responsibility to use an AFD process? I don't mean that we need to have Wikipedia-style bureaucracy here, but I can imagine feeling miffed if you removed a bunch of things I wrote in good faith without at least giving me a chance to defend them. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 20:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*"Feelings" are good. Healthy even. Just so long as they don't take over for logic and intellect. If something isn't appropriate, Administrators have no other obligation than to remove it. Yes, sometimes that is unfair, unfortunately. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the whole point that SeanTheSheep was trying to touch on was that the material was completely uncontroversial, was written in good faith, and deleted unilaterally. That's not unfairness, that's Wikipedia-style bureaucracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*I think the whole point of this, like WP, we have people who don't even know all the facts, and certainly didn't want to learn them, posting their opinions. Especially Sysops, talking about another, ignorant, totally, of the background. Oh well, people think it is their "right" to talk, even if they don't bother to know the facts, so who am I to point out that is wrong? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::And the point about this is that the evidence on which a sensible decision could have been made has been removed. I still want to know on what basis Sysops are granted license to summarily remove articles without discussion. Clearly if someone creates a ''Llama Sex'' article as a spoof or vandal entry then that can be summarily removed, but to remove a bona fide article ''forever'' with no discussion just on the say-so of one person seems to me an illegitimate use of Sysop powers.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 05:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*And that is all well and good, Sean, however Andy has granted us that authority, as the Owner of this site. So, your opinion, which is real to you, and your truth, isn't for the site owner. ''Therefore, in matters here, that decision has already been made, months before you came here.''. For the future, I might suggest, instead of posting here, you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved, better through a private email or IM, that is how we prefer it done here, no matter what your experiences might be with other wiki's. If that fails to gain results, and you still wish to pursue the matter, contact another Sysop and discuss. Finally, failing those methods, post here. Hope this helps. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::So Sysops have the powers to unilaterally remove articles without discussion, and that by your own words "you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved", in other words, do some behind-the-scenes negotiation. The whole process here seems remarkably anti-democratic and un-American in essence. The whole Conservapedia enterprise is beginning to look to me as if it had been imported form some dark recesses of [[George Orwell]]'s imagination.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well you are either incredibly naive, or misinformed. All of the American Congress and politics in this country works like that. Bills are introduced, negotiated behind closed doors, then brought to a public vote, and up until that vote, accomodations and changes are continually made, all in those "dark recesses" you talk about. It seems to work, as we are indeed the oldest enduring Democratic Republic in the entire world. We pride ourselves here at CP at not being like Wikipedia, where possibly good and valuable editors such as yourself, are not called out and subjected to public ridicule by other users, who may or may not have more expertise on the article in question. Is that your idea of American? Disagreements between users are better played out without that public stage, unless and until a resolution cannot be reached. Those prefering it otherwise, I suspect of liking public drama and "pot stirring" which on any site is counter-productive. In any event, I have explained to you how we prefer it to work, so unless and until you contact Ed Poor, and ask for his thinking, no action will be taken on this complaint. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Three points: (1) At least any bill which is introduced gets to be seen and can be discussed by someone, can be discussed in an open forum, and not deleted without trace unilaterally by a group of arbitrarily chosen Sysops. (2) In addiiton, who are you to decide whether or not I would or would not want to be subjected to public ridicule? By submitting my owrk, I open myself to what you call ridicule, however, I call it peer review, and it is the principle on which all Wikis are based, whether you like it or not. That argument is non-sensical and disingenuous (3) When I asked Ed poor for an explanation I was blocked for "arguing".--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 07:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'd wish Andy to take a position here. You, TK, have received much criticism for your harsh actions, comments and threats (usually by self-admitted liberals, I agree). In my humble opinion, you are too quick in some of your actions (blocks, comments). In addition I don't like your threats "you have been warned, next time..." or your "Andy has granted this and that authority". I really don't know what powers you have, but I see only you using them. For example, I don't see Ed Poor behaving like you. More to the point, I don't see Andy behaving like you. It is entirely possible that before every move you make you consult with Andy. But as I said, I'd wish Andy to take a position here. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*What you are actually saying, Leopeo, is that you have seen his expressions before, you don't accept them, and wish it to be stated once again, for drama's sake. Have you looked at the CP guidelines, at all? [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] As for Ed, read the complaints above, he seems to stand accused by others, like I am by you. There is a certain element of user here, who does not like the way the place is run, and wishes it to be more like Wikipedia. I can assure you Conservapedia never will. As for Andy, he reads and sees more here than I ever will, and it is my experience he posts when he wants to. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I have read the Commandments and the Guidelines (while I don't agree with the early-blocking guideline, but that is my problem). I know that Ed too has been accused (and I don't agree with all his actions). But, in my probably biased eyes, your actions and words stand out. I accept and understand how Conservapedia is run. But I certainly would prefer more humility, self control and acceptance of others from you, TK, personally. I apologize of accusing you personally, because you have never done to me anything of those things I accuse you of.
::Funny your comparison to Wikipedia. I thought threats and arbitrary blocking of users were not one of the ways to be different from WP. I am just asking Andy to take a position, he is not obliged to! :-) And for what I know, you may have an agreement with Andy that you are his 'sword', that is his 'hawk' side. But it would be better if it were clearly stated. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. Andy has wielded his sword often, and as you are around longer, will see that. What some take as "threats" are warnings. Some would prefer that we just block them, I prefer to make known to a user when I see them headed in the wrong direction for CP. What you see as "arbitrary" might just not be, unless you had full access to facts. Most everyone who is a Sysop has heard from Andy when someone is blocked for reasons he doesn't like. Likewise, he is a good leader, and spreads around kudos as well. We have disagreed about actions, privately, and respect each other enough to admit our mistakes (on those rare occasions we make them). Conversely, Ed and I agree about 90% of the time as well. I readily admit he uses a more erudite manner, most of the time, than I do. I am blunt and direct, a rather rare commodity in today's world, IMO, and certainly not every one's cup of tea. However, I am fair. Not so much when people are evasive. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::If you are fair, then why do you not answer the questions posed against your integrity in some of the sections above? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 10:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RDre, you have not edited in three weeks or taken part in this discussion, yet appear here to impugn TK's integrity. This may be regarded as incivility and trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It was a valid question, regardless of his edit history; that was an ad hominem comment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Banned from IRC channel ==

TK banned me from the #conservapedia [[IRC]] channel for no apparent reason, and he has declined to offer any explanation:
:Any particular reason you kicked and banned me from #conservapedia? --Jtl 02:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:And what is that reason? --Jtl 02:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be patient. All will be explained, and soon. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Like all those other mysterious big changes you keep talking about that are coming soon? Why won't you just answer the question and explain your actions? --Jtl 02:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
He had two perfectly good opportunities already to give a clue why, and has edited the site since that last question was posed, but he hasn't answered. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Conscientious objector

2007-05-15T04:45:19Z

Jtl: typo fix

A conscientious objector (CO) is a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces because to do so would violate his conscience. Such people are often motivated by a religious idea of [[pacifism]], such as [[Quakers]] or [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]. A CO can also be a serving member of the military that has moral objections to killing another human, yet still wants to remain in the military.

Conscientious objector status is generally not given to people who have political reasons for opposing their nation's military policy, even if they call themselves "anti-war". They must demonstrate a moral or religious objection to the institution of war itself.

"Selective" conscientious objectors only refuse to fight in a particular war, but the U.S. does not grant them CO status. Nor does it grant CO status for mere philosophical or practical objections.<ref>A person who wants to get out of military service because it is inconvenient or for reasons of "personal expediency" ("it interferes with my school, job, or family plans, etc.") cannot expect to be classified as a CO. [http://www.scn.org/IP/sdmcc/co.htm Who is a Conscientious Objector?]</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>
[[category:religion]]

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-05-13T04:42:39Z

Jtl:

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Sampling error isn't significantly affected by the percentage of the population included in the sample -- a representative sample of 1000 is as reliable in the USA as it is in Monaco. The problem in this case is that it's difficult to justify the assumption that those who self identify as liberal or conservative are representative of the community of Wikipedia editors. It may well be true that there are six times as many liberal Wikipedians than conservative, but it's not statistically reasonable to conclude that from a self-selected sample such as this.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The last time I looked at Wikipedia, the same size was 274 (for conservatives + liberals). This is not a large sample. The total percent sample size is about half that for a Harris poll (that it admits that it has errors that gives that it cannot give a good confidence[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548]), however the sample for wikipedia is self selected meaning that you cannot use it to make statistically responsible statements.[http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/2006/samp_err_stmt.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: It is baffling that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments. --[[User:Order]] 10 May.
3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

In a world of rainbow colors, it can be hard to decide with are "black" and which are "white". <SARCASM>Strangely, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Gulik2 is absolutely right. See Perry (1970) 'Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Year: A scheme'. Perry says that intellectual development occurs as follows:
# 'Dualism' - a simple interpretation of the world as black/white, us/them , good/bad etc.
# 'Multiplicity'; -= an acceptance that there are different points of view and they cannot be simply labelled good/bad etc.
# 'Relativism' - requires that the different points of view are contextualiised, and that knowledge/behaviour in one context may be perfectly acceptable and correct, may not be appropriate in another.

for a source see: http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/scholarship_teaching/perrystheory.html

What occurs to me is all that if Perry is correct, with the obsession with Liberals/Conservative points of view, many contributors on this site do not seem to have developed intellectually much further than their freshman year. Hm. Think I'll write an article about this...--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Perry Theory]] for the article --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Where did "12" come from?? ==

Ed, where did your "12" come from?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:It would be informative if somebody with access to the appropriate data could calculate the LQ for Conservapedia, for purposes of comparison? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== An X for a Y, for an L, for a C ==

This article has a few problems.

#X is defined as number of liberals, and Y is defined as number of conservatives. X/(X+Y) is '''the same''' as L/(L+C). The article argues that they are different, proving that the author doesn't know how to work with variables. And it proves that the author doesn't read his own definitions.
#The criticism that a measure is between 0 and 1, shows that the critic doesn't know that such a measure is equivalent to a measure that ranges between 0 and infinity. Take for example the negative logarithm of the first measure. It just show that the author has not the faintest idea about functions over an infinite domain.
#The remark that an increase from 90% to 99% is ''just'' a 10% increase, shows that the author doesn't know how to interpreter percentages. People who do work with percentages know that the difference between 90% and 99% is an order of magnitude.
#The comparison with other metrics is flawed, because the author didn't compare it with any metric that is actually used in literature. Earlier versions of this article pointed to alternative definitions of liberal bias. None of them is mentioned.
#Finally, this article repeats the old misinformation that the ratio liberal in the wikipedia is 3:1, while it is 1:2 in the American public. It doesn't mention the sources, nor that, if you look at the sources, this comparison is based on nothing but quick sand. It just shows that the author has no idea about statistics.

As a summary, this article proves nicely that in conservapedia conservative bias is more important than facts. Even basic mathematics, which is neither liberal or conservative, is canned to make a poor argument. [[User:Order]] 10 May

I saw that Aschlafly fixed some optinionated part of the article, without actually fixing any of the fundamental flaws. I would suggest to fix the fundamental flaws first. It, for example, still argues that X/(X+Y), where X are Liberals, and Y Conservatives, is different from L/(L+C), where L stands for Liberals, and C for Conservatives. If you want to fix something, fix that first. [[User:Order]] 11 May.

== Update ==

I extended and updated the article on ''lberal quotient''. If you find typos or factual errors, please feel free to fix it. [[User:Order]] May 13.

== How conservative is the US? ==
The article says "According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [1], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.", but according to Aschlafly, Jack Abramoff wasn't a conservative<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=158024&oldid=158009</ref>, despite his ties to Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Oliver North; his membership on G. W. Bush's transition team, etc. Rudy Giuliani made a statement held up as a "liberal falsehood of the day"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&diff=154374&oldid=153131</ref>, so is presumably not a conservative either. Given this, it certainly doesn't appear to me that merely self-identifying as such is enough to be considered a 'conservative' for this site, and the Harris Poll shouldn't be used to determine how conservative the country is. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2007-05-13T04:36:04Z

Jtl:

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the <s>Bay</s>[[Gulf of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.

: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
::I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
:: I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
:: Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:What a joke! Click on this one [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present ''this'' as an example of deceit? A little '''''disengenous''''', don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of '''''deceit''''' ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm The Vanity Fair interview transcript] shows quite clearly:
<blockquote>
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -- 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. '''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason''', but -- Hold on one second. 
(Pause) 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -- 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. 
</blockquote>
:: My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:

::::Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?

::::Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.

::::Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --

::::Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.

:::Comments? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
:::: Wolfowitz then said "''The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.''" -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek this Newsweek Article]
::::<blockquote>But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”</blockquote>
:::: (a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
:::: Thus, the questions to answer:
::::* Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1]
::::** Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
::::* Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
::::* Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
::::--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, ''et al'', have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.

:::::The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting ''both'' Saddam ''and'' al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.

:::::As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.

:::::Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,''"There have always been three fundamental concerns.
:*One is weapons of mass destruction,
:*the second is support for terrorism,
:*the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

:"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Jack Abramoff ===
Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman ===
There is growing evidence[http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillmanlynch_070424/] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My viewpoint ==

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

== Andy...?! ==

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.

: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Freud==

Most great scientists have their theories disproved. Newton was wrong, Pasteur has been subject ot a great deal of correction. Part of the reason they are great is that they can buildmodels, hypotheses that are open to question. It is easy to make assertions that are opinion or simple observation. To create a model that fits evidence and is later open to testing, particuarly in a field where this has not been the case, is the mark of a great scientist. [[User:stevendavy]] (PhD, since you ask)

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you tell that some lies, you should give some reference which gives arguments what is incorrect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 06:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::This has to be removed within few days, if no sources found. (Prope correction is not to only remove need for ref.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I would also like to see a source for the claim that "liberals continue to teach that Freud was a great scientist." In my experience Freud is routinely studied in intro psych classes because he and his ideas are an important element of the history of the field, but the point is typically made that there is no scientific basis for his theories. And while his theories are useless, research has shown that some of his therapeutic methods are indeed useful (some, not all). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== And, of course, the page is locked. ==
Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, it belongs to [[user:Aschlafly|Andrew Schlafly]]. He owns the site. It is is his blog, and the sysops are his co-bloggers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. He is a young earth creationist and passionate liberal-hater. People wanted to broaden some of the page to include a bit more reality. Check out what's been happening over at [[astronomy]] this evening for more of the same... [[User:Human|Human]]

: Pages are locked after there is a pattern of violations of [[rules]] on them. I will unlocked [deceit] per ythe requests here, but if there are rule violations, then it will be locke again.

: Human, I suggest you apologize and promise not to attack editors personally here, or your account will be blocked. Also, you seem to violate the 90/10 rule as independent grounds for blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::His count here [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Human] shows that of his 1175 edits 466 have been to actual articles (that’s about 40% actual editing). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This kind of rule should not be used for warnings especially when information at background is not correct. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read '''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'''. The writer of the article referenced is ''"Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online."'' Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?
:::::--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is it available online? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== As long as we're listing lies.... ==

How about [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/index.html The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]?
Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps we could add [[Ted Haggard]]. At least he admitted he was a ''deceiver''. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, [[Alger Hiss]] denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's ''In Denial'' for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by [[Venona]] evidence,
::''"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought.'' [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/lowsoviet.html]
:There is no comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Not that anyone asked==
But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. [[Downing Street Memo]] [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Scooter==
We're forgetting Scooter Libby, ''convicted'' of deceit...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:But, you forget, he's a Republican, right? As in, right wing, can do no wrong. Did he Profit!?!?! NO! There's no money to be made in lying for the conservative cause. Hence, no "deceit". QED. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Rarely have I read such petty comments, such mean-spirited comments, ''gentlemen''. In Washington, D.C., people of intellect and good manners of both parties, decried his conviction and persecution. Left holding the bag, it is called. I wonder if either of you would hold up being questioned by a Grand Jury about all your activities for the past year? Shame on both of you for not furthering good will and a higher plane of discourse here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*If by "left holding the bag" you mean "others in the administration should have been put on trial for endangering lives and national security in furtherance of petty political payback", then I agree heartily. And if you want to further good will and a higher plane of discourse, you could start by recommending this article for deletion...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

It's common for the military to deny [[friendly fire]] as a cause. That denial has nothing to do with being a conservative, and there is no evidence the denial in Tillman's case was by a conservative. FDR's Administration denied it also during World War II when a hero was killed by friendly fire.

Abramoff was no conservative.

Freud is taught to high school and college students without any admission of his deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Then why not add the friendly fire deceit example, and the Abramoff example? While pointing out that the deceivers were not representative of Conservatism as defined or interpreted by this site (which is its right to do)? And show the harm each case caused? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::*A.S., all due respect--Abramoff was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. Sounds like a conservative to me...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--)
Yah, right. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html][http://www.noagenda.org/connections/jack_abramoff/] Abramoff contributions to individual Democrats 1990-2006; need contribs to Democratic oraginizations, too?

*Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
*Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
*Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
*Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
*Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
*Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
*Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
*Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
*Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
*John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
*Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
*Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
*Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
*Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
*Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
*Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
*Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
*Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
*Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
*Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
*Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
*Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
*Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
*Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
*Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
*Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
*Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
*Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
*Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
*Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
*Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
*Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
*John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
*James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
*Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
*Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
*Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
*Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
*Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
*John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
*Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
*Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
*Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
*Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
*Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
*Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
*Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
*Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
*Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
*Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
*John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
*Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
*Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
*Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
*Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
*William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
*Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
*Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
*David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
*Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
*Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
*Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
*Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
*Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
*Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
*Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
*Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
*Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
*John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
*Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
*Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::: ...can you give us the Republican list :-) ? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 23:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Ah, deceit...Yes, Abramoff's ''clients'' gave money to Democrats, but Jack ''personally'' gave '''only''' to Republicans or Republican PACs. And, while Abramoff's clients gave to Dems, they gave far more to Republicans (which was his clients' opposite pattern from their pre-Abramoff donations, strongly suggesting that Abramoff steered money away from Dems and toward Republicans). --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That would be incorrect. Jack never gave his "own" money, any more than I do. As George Wallace said long ago, in one of the few honest and correct statements he ever made: "In Washington, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Try here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=HK6HE&txtName=Abramoff,%20Jack&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N
--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately, that link likely won't work very long -- the 'key' bit is a captcha.
::Nice job - though, is there any chance the list below can be sorted by amount, rather than alphabetically, like the list above? [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

A summary:
* Abraham, Spencer: $2000
* Aderholt, Robert: $250
* Alby, Barbara: $1000
* Allen, George: $1000
* American Liberty PAC: $2500
* Americans for a Republican Majority: $22500
* Armey, Dick: $500
* Ashcroft, John: $1000
* Battle Born PAC: $1000
* Bond, Christopher S 'Kit': $1500
* Bordonaro, Molly H: $500
* Bordonaro, Tom: $2000
* Brooks, Susan: $1000
* Brownback, Sam: $500
* Bunning, Jim: $1000
* Burton, Dan: $4000
* Bush, George W: $3000
* Cannon, Chris: $2000
* Cantor, Eric: $5000
* Chambliss, Saxby: $1000
* Chenoweth, Helen: $2000
* Christensen, Jon: $250
* Chrysler, Dick: $250
* Coburn, Tom: $250
* Cochran, Thad: $1000
* Cornyn, John: $1000
* Cox, Christopher: $250
* Crane, Philip M: $2000
* Cremeans, Frank A: $250
* Cubin, Barbara: $250
* Davis, Tom: $500
* DeLay, Tom: $10000
* Dole, Elizabeth: $1000
* Doolittle, John T: $4000
* Dunn, Jennifer: $1000
* Ehrlich, Bob: $500
* Emerson, Mark: $500
* English, Phil: $1000
* Ensign, John: $4000
* Enzi, Mike: $1000
* Faircloth, Lauch: $1500
* Ferguson, Mike: $1000
* First Freedoms Fund: $5000
* Flotron, Francis E: $1000
* Forbes, J Randy: $1000
* Friends of the Big Sky: $5000
* Fund for a Free Market America: $2500
* Funderburk, David: $1000
* Gerow, Charles R: $500
* Gingrey, Phil: $500
* Gormley, William L: $1000
* Gramm, Phil: $1000
* Grant, Carolyn W: $1000
* Grassley, Chuck: $2000
* Gutknecht, Gil: $250
* Hastings, Richard "Doc": $500
* Hawkeye PAC: $5000
* Hayworth, J D: $1250
* Hill, Rick: $250
* Hilleary, Van: $1750
* Hofmeister, Gary A: $1000
* Hutchinson, Tim: $2000
* Hutchison, Claude B Jr: $1000
* Inhofe, James M: $1000
* Isakson, Johnny: $2000
* Istook, Ernest J: $1000
* Janklow, Bill: $250
* Jones, Walter B Jr: $1250
* Kaloi, Kimo: $1000
* Keep Our Majority PAC: $2500
* Keller, Ric: $1000
* Kingston, Jack: $1000
* Largent, Steve: $250
* Latham, Tom: $1000
* Lazio, Rick A: $250
* Leadership PAC 2004: $2000
* Lefever, Tim: $500
* LoBiondo, Frank A: $1000
* McCollum, Bill: $1000
* Metcalf, Jack: $250
* Mitnick, John: $250
* Monday Morning PAC: $2000
* Morella, Connie: $1000
* Nethercutt, George: $500
* Nethercutt, George R Jr: $1000
* New Jersey Republican State Cmte: $5000
* Ney, Bob: $2250
* North Carolina Republican Executive Cmte: $5000
* North, Oliver: $1000
* Ose, Doug: $1000
* Otter, C L 'Butch': $1000
* Paul, Ron: $250
* Perry, Brent: $250
* Phillips, Howard: $500
* Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr: $3500
* Pirozzi, Elia Vincent: $1000
* Pitts, Joe: $894
* Pombo, Richard: $2000
* Pombo, Richard W: $500
* Preston, Gates et al: $5500
* Regula, Ralph: $1000
* Rehberg, Denny: $2000
* Rely on Your Beliefs: $8500
* Republican Majority Fund: $5000
* Rich PAC: $5000
* Riley, Bob: $1000
* Rohrabacher, Dana: $7500
* Royce, Ed: $500
* Ryan, Paul: $949
* Ryun, Jim: $250
* Saxton, Jim: $0
* Scarborough, Joe: $1000
* Senate Victory Fund: $7000
* Shelby, Richard C: $1000
* Simmons, Rob: $1250
* Simpson, Mike: $1000
* Smith, Bob: $4920
* Smith, Gordon: $250
* Smith, Gordon H: $3000
* Snowbarger, Vince: $250
* Specter, Arlen: $2000
* Stevens, Ted: $1000
* Stockman, Steve: $500
* Sununu, John E: $250
* Susan B Anthony List: $1000
* Talent, James M: $2000
* Tate, Randy: $1000
* Taylor, Charles H: $2250
* Teague, Edward B: $250
* Team PAC: $1000
* Terrell, Suzanne: $3000
* Thune, John: $1000
* United States Family PAC: $3000
* Watts, J C: $250
* Weldon, Curt: $1000
* Weller, Jerry: $500
* Wicker, Roger: $250
* Wilson, Heather: $1000
* Wittig, Suzanne Dear: $250
* Young Jewish Leadership PAC: $985
* Young, Tom: $500
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

===Further Abramoff comments===

So - it's agreed, everyone thinks Abramoff was a stinker, so ''why not put his deceit in the article''? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because you are going to have a difficult time assigning partisan motves to the man. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly so. One can ascribe political motives to him. Business motives. The press makes up the partisan deal, because everyone loves to embarass someone. Business has no politics other than making more $$. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's no need for a partisan motive. Just a description of his deceit and how it was "bad". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmm. You know, I think I'll agree with RobS here--Abramoff(& Co.) wasn't deceitful so much as corrupt/crooked, which is a different issue. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Is not that the point of the article? Corrupt/crooked, deceiving in order to gain? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Abramoff wasn't a conservative. Not at all. Also, I'm not sure how Abramoff was strikingly ''deceitful''. Does anyone know to what crimes he pled guilty? Was fraud one of them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: As a matter of fact, yes, it was. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon (Richard M.) ==

TK just deleted this addition wthout explanation:

:November 17, 1973, Declaring that "I am not a crook," President [[Richard Nixon]] vigorously defended his record in the [[Watergate]] case and said he had never profited from his public service. "I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice," Mr. Nixon said.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm Watergate Files]</ref>

Nixon almost destroyed the presidency with his deceit on this issue. And yet, a Larry King misquote, presented as a question, is still included? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry! Must have been an edit conflict! Please don't be so suspicious, and try contacting a guy, okay? I haven't blocked a user for contacting me in at least a week! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Conservatives abandoned Nixon by late 1971, well before Watergate occurred, I think. Nixon's fall was just another example of a politician being brought down, for which there are hundreds of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::So why not include him? This is not an exercise in conservative-bashing - it's more an attempt to show that not only avowed "liberals" practice deceit upon occasion. And, well, deservedly, get abandoned by conservatives? Anyway, Nixon, was, ironically, the last great liberal President anyway. Wage and price controls? No wonder Cons. abandoned him! EPA, oh, I forget he other big liberal thing he did right now. But you know. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

: Well, the other problem is that Nixon's crime was not really "deceit". It was a burglary and cover-up. That's not what most people mean by deceit, and it's not similar to other entries. If Nixon is to be added, then Ted Kennedy would be added first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::Um, Er, Well, "Cover-up" does tend to involve deceit. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, armed robbery by a masked gunman also involves deceit. So does terrorism, in fact. Will people be proposing that we list Bin Laden too? No, that's not what this entry is about. Neither is burglary and denial what this entry is about. The listed examples are what we have in mind here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Did Bin Laden engage in deceit? Or was he "honest" in his terrorist tactics/goals? Get real with this articvle, before Das Talk, or whatever, mocks it! [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK!! ==

Human, the crap by Nixon WAS RESTORED, by me, YESTERDAY! Right after you called my attention to the edit conflict. Jeeze....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I saw, and I think I said so, somewhere... Sorry if I didn't say so in the right place at the right time. Thank you, and duly noted, your honesty in this matter. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: And then it was removed again, thus the renewed discussion. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Pornography

2007-05-11T22:25:42Z

Jtl:

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of penises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2007-05-11T04:36:21Z

Jtl: more than a quarter million dollars more than "none"...

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the <s>Bay</s>[[Gulf of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.

: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
::I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
:: I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
:: Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:What a joke! Click on this one [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present ''this'' as an example of deceit? A little '''''disengenous''''', don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of '''''deceit''''' ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm The Vanity Fair interview transcript] shows quite clearly:
<blockquote>
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -- 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. '''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason''', but -- Hold on one second. 
(Pause) 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -- 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. 
</blockquote>
:: My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:

::::Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?

::::Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.

::::Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --

::::Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.

:::Comments? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
:::: Wolfowitz then said "''The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.''" -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek this Newsweek Article]
::::<blockquote>But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”</blockquote>
:::: (a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
:::: Thus, the questions to answer:
::::* Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1]
::::** Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
::::* Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
::::* Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
::::--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, ''et al'', have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.

:::::The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting ''both'' Saddam ''and'' al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.

:::::As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.

:::::Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,''"There have always been three fundamental concerns.
:*One is weapons of mass destruction,
:*the second is support for terrorism,
:*the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

:"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Jack Abramoff ===
Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman ===
There is growing evidence[http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillmanlynch_070424/] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My viewpoint ==

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

== Andy...?! ==

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.

: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Freud==

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you tell that some lies, you should give some reference which gives arguments what is incorrect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 06:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::This has to be removed within few days, if no sources found. (Prope correction is not to only remove need for ref.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I would also like to see a source for the claim that "liberals continue to teach that Freud was a great scientist." In my experience Freud is routinely studied in intro psych classes because he and his ideas are an important element of the history of the field, but the point is typically made that there is no scientific basis for his theories. And while his theories are useless, research has shown that some of his therapeutic methods are indeed useful (some, not all). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== And, of course, the page is locked. ==
Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, it belongs to [[user:Aschlafly|Andrew Schlafly]]. He owns the site. It is is his blog, and the sysops are his co-bloggers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. He is a young earth creationist and passionate liberal-hater. People wanted to broaden some of the page to include a bit more reality. Check out what's been happening over at [[astronomy]] this evening for more of the same... [[User:Human|Human]]

: Pages are locked after there is a pattern of violations of [[rules]] on them. I will unlocked [deceit] per ythe requests here, but if there are rule violations, then it will be locke again.

: Human, I suggest you apologize and promise not to attack editors personally here, or your account will be blocked. Also, you seem to violate the 90/10 rule as independent grounds for blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::His count here [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Human] shows that of his 1175 edits 466 have been to actual articles (that’s about 40% actual editing). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This kind of rule should not be used for warnings especially when information at background is not correct. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read '''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'''. The writer of the article referenced is ''"Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online."'' Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?
:::::--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is it available online? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== As long as we're listing lies.... ==

How about [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/index.html The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]?
Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps we could add [[Ted Haggard]]. At least he admitted he was a ''deceiver''. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, [[Alger Hiss]] denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's ''In Denial'' for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by [[Venona]] evidence,
::''"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought.'' [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/lowsoviet.html]
:There is no comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Not that anyone asked==
But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. [[Downing Street Memo]] [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Scooter==
We're forgetting Scooter Libby, ''convicted'' of deceit...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:But, you forget, he's a Republican, right? As in, right wing, can do no wrong. Did he Profit!?!?! NO! There's no money to be made in lying for the conservative cause. Hence, no "deceit". QED. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Rarely have I read such petty comments, such mean-spirited comments, ''gentlemen''. In Washington, D.C., people of intellect and good manners of both parties, decried his conviction and persecution. Left holding the bag, it is called. I wonder if either of you would hold up being questioned by a Grand Jury about all your activities for the past year? Shame on both of you for not furthering good will and a higher plane of discourse here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*If by "left holding the bag" you mean "others in the administration should have been put on trial for endangering lives and national security in furtherance of petty political payback", then I agree heartily. And if you want to further good will and a higher plane of discourse, you could start by recommending this article for deletion...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

It's common for the military to deny [[friendly fire]] as a cause. That denial has nothing to do with being a conservative, and there is no evidence the denial in Tillman's case was by a conservative. FDR's Administration denied it also during World War II when a hero was killed by friendly fire.

Abramoff was no conservative.

Freud is taught to high school and college students without any admission of his deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Then why not add the friendly fire deceit example, and the Abramoff example? While pointing out that the deceivers were not representative of Conservatism as defined or interpreted by this site (which is its right to do)? And show the harm each case caused? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::*A.S., all due respect--Abramoff was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. Sounds like a conservative to me...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--)
Yah, right. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html][http://www.noagenda.org/connections/jack_abramoff/] Abramoff contributions to individual Democrats 1990-2006; need contribs to Democratic oraginizations, too?

*Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
*Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
*Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
*Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
*Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
*Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
*Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
*Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
*Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
*John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
*Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
*Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
*Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
*Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
*Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
*Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
*Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
*Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
*Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
*Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
*Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
*Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
*Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
*Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
*Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
*Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
*Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
*Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
*Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
*Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
*Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
*Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
*John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
*James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
*Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
*Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
*Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
*Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
*Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
*John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
*Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
*Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
*Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
*Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
*Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
*Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
*Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
*Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
*Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
*Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
*John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
*Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
*Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
*Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
*Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
*William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
*Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
*Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
*David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
*Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
*Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
*Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
*Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
*Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
*Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
*Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
*Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
*Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
*John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
*Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
*Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::: ...can you give us the Republican list :-) ? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 23:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Ah, deceit...Yes, Abramoff's ''clients'' gave money to Democrats, but Jack ''personally'' gave '''only''' to Republicans or Republican PACs. And, while Abramoff's clients gave to Dems, they gave far more to Republicans (which was his clients' opposite pattern from their pre-Abramoff donations, strongly suggesting that Abramoff steered money away from Dems and toward Republicans). --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That would be incorrect. Jack never gave his "own" money, any more than I do. As George Wallace said long ago, in one of the few honest and correct statements he ever made: "In Washington, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Try here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=HK6HE&txtName=Abramoff,%20Jack&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N
--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately, that link likely won't work very long -- the 'key' bit is a captcha.

A summary:
* Abraham, Spencer: $2000
* Aderholt, Robert: $250
* Alby, Barbara: $1000
* Allen, George: $1000
* American Liberty PAC: $2500
* Americans for a Republican Majority: $22500
* Armey, Dick: $500
* Ashcroft, John: $1000
* Battle Born PAC: $1000
* Bond, Christopher S 'Kit': $1500
* Bordonaro, Molly H: $500
* Bordonaro, Tom: $2000
* Brooks, Susan: $1000
* Brownback, Sam: $500
* Bunning, Jim: $1000
* Burton, Dan: $4000
* Bush, George W: $3000
* Cannon, Chris: $2000
* Cantor, Eric: $5000
* Chambliss, Saxby: $1000
* Chenoweth, Helen: $2000
* Christensen, Jon: $250
* Chrysler, Dick: $250
* Coburn, Tom: $250
* Cochran, Thad: $1000
* Cornyn, John: $1000
* Cox, Christopher: $250
* Crane, Philip M: $2000
* Cremeans, Frank A: $250
* Cubin, Barbara: $250
* Davis, Tom: $500
* DeLay, Tom: $10000
* Dole, Elizabeth: $1000
* Doolittle, John T: $4000
* Dunn, Jennifer: $1000
* Ehrlich, Bob: $500
* Emerson, Mark: $500
* English, Phil: $1000
* Ensign, John: $4000
* Enzi, Mike: $1000
* Faircloth, Lauch: $1500
* Ferguson, Mike: $1000
* First Freedoms Fund: $5000
* Flotron, Francis E: $1000
* Forbes, J Randy: $1000
* Friends of the Big Sky: $5000
* Fund for a Free Market America: $2500
* Funderburk, David: $1000
* Gerow, Charles R: $500
* Gingrey, Phil: $500
* Gormley, William L: $1000
* Gramm, Phil: $1000
* Grant, Carolyn W: $1000
* Grassley, Chuck: $2000
* Gutknecht, Gil: $250
* Hastings, Richard "Doc": $500
* Hawkeye PAC: $5000
* Hayworth, J D: $1250
* Hill, Rick: $250
* Hilleary, Van: $1750
* Hofmeister, Gary A: $1000
* Hutchinson, Tim: $2000
* Hutchison, Claude B Jr: $1000
* Inhofe, James M: $1000
* Isakson, Johnny: $2000
* Istook, Ernest J: $1000
* Janklow, Bill: $250
* Jones, Walter B Jr: $1250
* Kaloi, Kimo: $1000
* Keep Our Majority PAC: $2500
* Keller, Ric: $1000
* Kingston, Jack: $1000
* Largent, Steve: $250
* Latham, Tom: $1000
* Lazio, Rick A: $250
* Leadership PAC 2004: $2000
* Lefever, Tim: $500
* LoBiondo, Frank A: $1000
* McCollum, Bill: $1000
* Metcalf, Jack: $250
* Mitnick, John: $250
* Monday Morning PAC: $2000
* Morella, Connie: $1000
* Nethercutt, George: $500
* Nethercutt, George R Jr: $1000
* New Jersey Republican State Cmte: $5000
* Ney, Bob: $2250
* North Carolina Republican Executive Cmte: $5000
* North, Oliver: $1000
* Ose, Doug: $1000
* Otter, C L 'Butch': $1000
* Paul, Ron: $250
* Perry, Brent: $250
* Phillips, Howard: $500
* Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr: $3500
* Pirozzi, Elia Vincent: $1000
* Pitts, Joe: $894
* Pombo, Richard: $2000
* Pombo, Richard W: $500
* Preston, Gates et al: $5500
* Regula, Ralph: $1000
* Rehberg, Denny: $2000
* Rely on Your Beliefs: $8500
* Republican Majority Fund: $5000
* Rich PAC: $5000
* Riley, Bob: $1000
* Rohrabacher, Dana: $7500
* Royce, Ed: $500
* Ryan, Paul: $949
* Ryun, Jim: $250
* Saxton, Jim: $0
* Scarborough, Joe: $1000
* Senate Victory Fund: $7000
* Shelby, Richard C: $1000
* Simmons, Rob: $1250
* Simpson, Mike: $1000
* Smith, Bob: $4920
* Smith, Gordon: $250
* Smith, Gordon H: $3000
* Snowbarger, Vince: $250
* Specter, Arlen: $2000
* Stevens, Ted: $1000
* Stockman, Steve: $500
* Sununu, John E: $250
* Susan B Anthony List: $1000
* Talent, James M: $2000
* Tate, Randy: $1000
* Taylor, Charles H: $2250
* Teague, Edward B: $250
* Team PAC: $1000
* Terrell, Suzanne: $3000
* Thune, John: $1000
* United States Family PAC: $3000
* Watts, J C: $250
* Weldon, Curt: $1000
* Weller, Jerry: $500
* Wicker, Roger: $250
* Wilson, Heather: $1000
* Wittig, Suzanne Dear: $250
* Young Jewish Leadership PAC: $985
* Young, Tom: $500
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::So - it's agreed, everyone thinks Abramoff was a stinker, so ''why not put his deceit in the article''? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Template talk:Tfa

2007-05-08T03:30:30Z

Jtl: Anti-homosexuals leaving Episcopal church, not gaining power in it

==The real thing==

Here's a Renaissance painting of the real thing:

[[Image:Annibale Carracci 1585.jpg|thumb|300px|Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ, by Annibale Carracci (1585)]]

What do you mean by this? What's the "real thing" --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

----

You should not post "facts" (such as that ''None'' of the founding fathers were deists) here without backing them up. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:13, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Reply: I did. See [[deism]]. Headlines should contain bold, true statements to catch the eye and interest the reader in learning more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 30 January 2007 (EST)

==skin already on MonoBook==
Btw, technically the skin was already on Monobook, and changing the site default did not change it to the Conserv skin. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Darwin==

The statement made here is false, darwin did NOT say that, it is a quote from a book from an author that analyzed darwin's works and concluded that was how he felt. The quote is attributable to Kevles NOT darwin. It should be changed. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for alerting me of that. The article I read was not very clear on that. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 17:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Quality of sources of information ==

I still think that if we simply disallow personal websites, our quality will greatly improve. Vandalism can be more quickly recognized, editors will go the extra 10 feet and find a quality, reliable, dependable site instead of a flashy personal site to get the same information. But when it comes to controversial issues the difficulties are even more critical. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Andy, cite things or don't put them on the news for the day ==

That about sums it up.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Spelling==
The "enviromental-loving" left likes CFL light bulbs should be '''enviro''n''mental'''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 16:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pipe links instead of redirects? ==

Instead of
*Yes: <nowiki> [[Giuliani]], [[Romney]], [[McCain]]</nowiki>
*No: <nowiki>[[Ron Paul]], [[Brownback]], [[Tancredo]]</nowiki>

How about
*Yes: <nowiki>[[Rudy Giuliani|Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney|Romney]], [[John McCain|McCain]]</nowiki>
*No: <nowiki>[[Ron Paul]], [[Sam Brownback|Brownback]], [[Tom Tancredo|Tancredo]]</nowiki>

Which would give
*Yes: [[Rudy Giuliani|Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney|Romney]], [[John McCain|McCain]]
*No: [[Ron Paul]], [[Sam Brownback|Brownback]], [[Tom Tancredo|Tancredo]]

Thus, no redirects are needed and you are going to the proper spot in the first place. In the mean time, you might want a disambiguation page for [[romney]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Anti-homosexuals leaving Episcopal church, not gaining power in it ==

''Conservatives grow stronger in the Episcopal Church'' doesn't seem like an accurate conclusion to me -- they're ''leaving'' the Episcopal Church, not joining it. That's even explicit in the clip posted here: "congregations around the country that want to leave the Episcopal Church"; as the NY Times story says, there's a new branch of Anglicanism in the US, the "Convocation of Anglicans in North America". When conservatives leave Wikipedia to work on Conservapedia instead, is it accurate to say "Conservatives grow stronger on Wikipedia"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:56:51Z

Jtl:

{{protect|RobS}}

This is all stolen content from [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html]. It should be removed immediately. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Please review, it's not. It's all authored by me and another editor. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you absolutely sure? Did you apply it to teachersparadise.com?

:::I am reviewing there is a lot of material thats word for word from the site linked...[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The second paragraph certainly looks identical to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay its a mixture of copy right and original from what I can tell, this needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Agree. By the way, it's virtually certain that the original source is Wikipedia. [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html] appears to be a Wikipedia "mirror," and probably is a slightly out-of-date version of the current WIkipedia article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::All this is moot now since its been locked. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 14:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

It needs to be unlocked right away, it should NEVER have been locked to begin with. I left a message at RobS. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to site the CP violations on this page to be believed. Follow BillOReillyfan's link...the first two paragraphs are verbatim. I am not going through the rest right until its unlocked. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I seriously suggest page-blanking until resolution. It can be worked on in user sandboxes, and patched together later. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I attempted a redirect to communism but got smacked down and the page locked, I think most of it is probably original but we need to be careful. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia was invented so that the common man could change and edit pages to ensure there accuracy and authenticity. This website is complete rubbish, if to preserve the pages so they are aligned with your twisted world view you have to lock them then what is the point. You are a load of hard-headed persistant **
:If name calling is, censorship & vandalism is what your comfortable with, perhaps you'd feel more at home at Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There are sections in the first CP version which appear to have been written by at least the following Wikipedia editors: 24.27.58.16, Nobs01, Jiang, Nobs, 195.92.67.70, TDC, Fred_Bauder. I'm assuming Nobs and Nobs01 are the same person and am guessing that that's RobS, in which case it's mostly (but still not completely, I don't think) ok.

* 195.92.67.70: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738296]
* 24.27.58.16: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5600863]
* Fred_Bauder: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19361015]
* Jiang: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738261]
* Nobs01: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14616242] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14621243] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19469843] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=15124731] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14707521] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14708391] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14588556] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19403636] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19368948] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19382709]
* Nobs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14169820] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14170220] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14220043] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14370961] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14327639]
* TDC: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371]
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nobs & Nobs01 are me; so is the 195.92.67.70; I'm not certain on the other IP so I'd have to check it out. The sections by TDC & Fred Bauder are collaborative with me, as can be shown throw diffs & discussion. And some of the TDC stuff actually was a page move of some of my work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::For example, I wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=18479202] and Fred Bauder, Wikipedia Arbitration Committee chairman, reinserted my passage with the edit summary "Attributed deleted passage". WP citations rules were more simple at that time. Bauder and I collobated on a few other pages and had extensive discussions on that source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The CP version I was comparing against had both versions of that edit; I attributed the first (shorter) version to Nobs01<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14616242</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14621243</ref> and the longer one to Fred Bauder<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19361015</ref>, but as I said I didn't look at the talk page (or any other related pages) at all. Sounds like the only possible problems are 24.27.58.16's opening sentence and Jiang's "splinter group" paragraph? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I ''think'' I accounted for page moves; I certainly intended to. I did not look at the talk page at all, though, so any collaboration which happened there, I would have missed. There were two particular sentences that appeared to come from TDC: ''The CPUSA even went so far as to accuse Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314</ref> and ''The CPUSA went so far as to denounce the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371</ref> Also, please understand I'm ''not'' claiming this is some massive problem; but having gone through 2 years worth of WP edits, there was no way I wasn't recording what I'd found. At the very least, it might prevent someone else from repeating the exercise.--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The discussion was very extensive and unprecedented; Bauder was a former [[National Lawyers Guild]] attorney, a CPUSA [[front organization]]. Bauder presided over my Arbitration hearing, which was brought by another former NLG member whom Bauder knew 30 years earier (see the Wikigulag Userbox on RobS user page). My banning from WP had countless conflict of interests such as this, including the fact the complaining party also had a personal relationship with the subject of the article that the dispute was over (another CPUSA member). Fred Bauder asked me to return to Wikipedia both publicly and privately [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-November/057170.html][http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8109277791523&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE] and finish the Venona series, which I declined, largely because of unresolved issues in the [[Wikipedia#Daniel Brandt controversy]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:50:39Z

Jtl: re-place my previous comment

{{protect|RobS}}

This is all stolen content from [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html]. It should be removed immediately. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Please review, it's not. It's all authored by me and another editor. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you absolutely sure? Did you apply it to teachersparadise.com?

:::I am reviewing there is a lot of material thats word for word from the site linked...[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The second paragraph certainly looks identical to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay its a mixture of copy right and original from what I can tell, this needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Agree. By the way, it's virtually certain that the original source is Wikipedia. [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html] appears to be a Wikipedia "mirror," and probably is a slightly out-of-date version of the current WIkipedia article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::All this is moot now since its been locked. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 14:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

It needs to be unlocked right away, it should NEVER have been locked to begin with. I left a message at RobS. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to site the CP violations on this page to be believed. Follow BillOReillyfan's link...the first two paragraphs are verbatim. I am not going through the rest right until its unlocked. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I seriously suggest page-blanking until resolution. It can be worked on in user sandboxes, and patched together later. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I attempted a redirect to communism but got smacked down and the page locked, I think most of it is probably original but we need to be careful. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia was invented so that the common man could change and edit pages to ensure there accuracy and authenticity. This website is complete rubbish, if to preserve the pages so they are aligned with your twisted world view you have to lock them then what is the point. You are a load of hard-headed persistant **
:If name calling is, censorship & vandalism is what your comfortable with, perhaps you'd feel more at home at Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There are sections in the first CP version which appear to have been written by at least the following Wikipedia editors: 24.27.58.16, Nobs01, Jiang, Nobs, 195.92.67.70, TDC, Fred_Bauder. I'm assuming Nobs and Nobs01 are the same person and am guessing that that's RobS, in which case it's mostly (but still not completely, I don't think) ok.

* 195.92.67.70: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738296]
* 24.27.58.16: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5600863]
* Fred_Bauder: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19361015]
* Jiang: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738261]
* Nobs01: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14616242] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14621243] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19469843] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=15124731] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14707521] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14708391] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14588556] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19403636] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19368948] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19382709]
* Nobs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14169820] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14170220] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14220043] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14370961] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14327639]
* TDC: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371]
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nobs & Nobs01 are me; so is the 195.92.67.70; I'm not certain on the other IP so I'd have to check it out. The sections by TDC & Fred Bauder are collaborative with me, as can be shown throw diffs & discussion. And some of the TDC stuff actually was a page move of some of my work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::For example, I wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=18479202] and Fred Bauder, Wikipedia Arbitration Committee chairman, reinserted my passage with the edit summary "Attributed deleted passage". WP citations rules were more simple at that time. Bauder and I collobated on a few other pages and had extensive discussions on that source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I ''think'' I accounted for page moves; I certainly intended to. I did not look at the talk page at all, though, so any collaboration which happened there, I would have missed. There were two particular sentences that appeared to come from TDC: ''The CPUSA even went so far as to accuse Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314</ref> and ''The CPUSA went so far as to denounce the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371</ref> Also, please understand I'm ''not'' claiming this is some massive problem; but having gone through 2 years worth of WP edits, there was no way I wasn't recording what I'd found. At the very least, it might prevent someone else from repeating the exercise.--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:49:53Z

Jtl: rv to RobS's last version to get back his last comment (why didn't I get warned about an edit conflict?)

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:35:58Z

Jtl:

{{protect|RobS}}

This is all stolen content from [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html]. It should be removed immediately. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Please review, it's not. It's all authored by me and another editor. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you absolutely sure? Did you apply it to teachersparadise.com?

:::I am reviewing there is a lot of material thats word for word from the site linked...[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The second paragraph certainly looks identical to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay its a mixture of copy right and original from what I can tell, this needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Agree. By the way, it's virtually certain that the original source is Wikipedia. [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html] appears to be a Wikipedia "mirror," and probably is a slightly out-of-date version of the current WIkipedia article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::All this is moot now since its been locked. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 14:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

It needs to be unlocked right away, it should NEVER have been locked to begin with. I left a message at RobS. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to site the CP violations on this page to be believed. Follow BillOReillyfan's link...the first two paragraphs are verbatim. I am not going through the rest right until its unlocked. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I seriously suggest page-blanking until resolution. It can be worked on in user sandboxes, and patched together later. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I attempted a redirect to communism but got smacked down and the page locked, I think most of it is probably original but we need to be careful. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia was invented so that the common man could change and edit pages to ensure there accuracy and authenticity. This website is complete rubbish, if to preserve the pages so they are aligned with your twisted world view you have to lock them then what is the point. You are a load of hard-headed persistant **
:If name calling is, censorship & vandalism is what your comfortable with, perhaps you'd feel more at home at Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There are sections in the first CP version which appear to have been written by at least the following Wikipedia editors: 24.27.58.16, Nobs01, Jiang, Nobs, 195.92.67.70, TDC, Fred_Bauder. I'm assuming Nobs and Nobs01 are the same person and am guessing that that's RobS, in which case it's mostly (but still not completely, I don't think) ok.

* 195.92.67.70: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738296]
* 24.27.58.16: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5600863]
* Fred_Bauder: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19361015]
* Jiang: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738261]
* Nobs01: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14616242] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14621243] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19469843] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=15124731] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14707521] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14708391] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14588556] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19403636] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19368948] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19382709]
* Nobs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14169820] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14170220] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14220043] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14370961] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14327639]
* TDC: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371]
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nobs is me; so is the 195.92.67.70; I'm not certain on the other IP so I'd have to check it out. The sections by TDC & Fred Bauder are collaborative with me, as can be shown throw diffs & discussion. And some of the TDC stuff actually was a page move of some of my work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I ''think'' I accounted for page moves; I certainly intended to. I did not look at the talk page at all, though, so any collaboration which happened there, I would have missed. There were two particular sentences that appeared to come from TDC: ''The CPUSA even went so far as to accuse Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314</ref> and ''The CPUSA went so far as to denounce the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371</ref> Also, please understand I'm ''not'' claiming this is some massive problem; but having gone through 2 years worth of WP edits, there was no way I wasn't recording what I'd found. At the very least, it might prevent someone else from repeating the exercise.--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:33:11Z

Jtl:

{{protect|RobS}}

This is all stolen content from [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html]. It should be removed immediately. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Please review, it's not. It's all authored by me and another editor. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you absolutely sure? Did you apply it to teachersparadise.com?

:::I am reviewing there is a lot of material thats word for word from the site linked...[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The second paragraph certainly looks identical to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay its a mixture of copy right and original from what I can tell, this needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Agree. By the way, it's virtually certain that the original source is Wikipedia. [http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/c/co/communist_party_usa.html] appears to be a Wikipedia "mirror," and probably is a slightly out-of-date version of the current WIkipedia article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::All this is moot now since its been locked. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 14:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

It needs to be unlocked right away, it should NEVER have been locked to begin with. I left a message at RobS. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to site the CP violations on this page to be believed. Follow BillOReillyfan's link...the first two paragraphs are verbatim. I am not going through the rest right until its unlocked. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I seriously suggest page-blanking until resolution. It can be worked on in user sandboxes, and patched together later. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I attempted a redirect to communism but got smacked down and the page locked, I think most of it is probably original but we need to be careful. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia was invented so that the common man could change and edit pages to ensure there accuracy and authenticity. This website is complete rubbish, if to preserve the pages so they are aligned with your twisted world view you have to lock them then what is the point. You are a load of hard-headed persistant **
:If name calling is, censorship & vandalism is what your comfortable with, perhaps you'd feel more at home at Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There are sections in the first CP version which appear to have been written by at least the following Wikipedia editors: 24.27.58.16, Nobs01, Jiang, Nobs, 195.92.67.70, TDC, Fred_Bauder. I'm assuming Nobs and Nobs01 are the same person and am guessing that that's RobS, in which case it's mostly (but still not completely, I don't think) ok.

* 195.92.67.70: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738296]
* 24.27.58.16: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5600863]
* Fred_Bauder: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19361015]
* Jiang: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738261]
* Nobs01: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14616242] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14621243] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19469843] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=15124731] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14707521] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14708391] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14588556] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19403636] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19368948] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=19382709]
* Nobs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14169820] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14170220] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14220043] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14370961] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=14327639]
* TDC: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371]
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nobs is me; so is the 195.92.67.70; I'm not certain on the other IP so I'd have to check it out. The sections by TDC & Fred Bauder are collaborative with me, as can be shown throw diffs & discussion. And some of the TDC stuff actually was a page move of some of my work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I ''think'' I accounted for page moves; I certainly intended to. I did not look at the talk page at all, though, so any collaboration which happened there, I would have missed. There were two particular sentences that appeared to come from TDC: ''The CPUSA even went so far as to accuse Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738314</ref> and ''The CPUSA went so far as to denounce the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_USA&diff=next&oldid=5738371</ref>--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:05:52Z

Jtl:

Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America

2007-05-05T20:05:13Z

Jtl:

John R. Lott

2007-05-02T18:39:41Z

Jtl: formatting

John Lott (b. 1958) is a scholar who published his research demonstrating that an increase in gun ownership results in a reduction in crime, because guns save more lives through deterrence and self-defense than they kill.{{fact}} The title of his 1999 book, which became a class on the issue of guns, is "More Guns, Less Crime." However, other researchers reanalyzed Lott's data and found numerous errors which nullified Lott's conclusions.<ref>http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_comment.pdf</ref>

Lott also claimed in his book that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack," but was unable to provide data for his assertion, claiming it had been lost in a computer crash.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html</ref>

Lott faced additional criticism in 2003, when it was discovered that he had created an alter-ego named "Mary Rosh", which he used to pseudonymously defend his research on various Internet forums.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8884-2003Jan31</ref>

Lott also observed how large newspapers and major media outlets consistently underreported the defensive use of guns to save lives. He found that factual accounts of the defensive use of guns would be reported in small rural newspapers but omitted from stories in larger papers, and stories that appeared days or weeks later.{{fact}}

Talk:Ice age

2007-04-29T06:24:44Z

Jtl: An "Ice Age" is an age, not a theory

== Actually Sourcing the Article ==
Ames, we don't post opinion as fact here. If you would like to present factual evidence here on the talk page then we can work off it and improve this entry.

For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion, and you can't call it opinion just because you don't like it. I'm reverting with explanation & categorization of the dispute.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we've been round the track several times before on this. Journalists' opinions are not to be restated here as fact. National Geographic is journalism, if you didn't notice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

National Geographic is popularized science - it's still science. I didn't see you having any citations for your statements. Please don't patronize me, either, by saying I didn't "discuss" it first - you ''deleted'' the comments that I made so it looked like I hadn't discussed it! If you actually want to settle this objectively, please add some real, scientific citations to your comments on the article. I'll wait until you've had a chance to do so until I revert or perform any other action.

I'd like to also note that you can't make the facts go away by calling the "opinions," reverting, locking & blocking. You can just make the facts go away from ''you''. To think of an educator employing such draconian tactics to hide ''science'' from his students!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have to agree, if AiG is considered an acceptable source on this site, then the National Geographic has to be considered reliable as well: it's one of the most distinguished and respected scientific journals in the world.[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I wouldn't go quite that far. National Geographic's online masthead characterizes it as a magazine, not a journal; their style guide refers to the publication as "a magazine," or, "the magazine," etc. Insofar as it is a journal in the vernacular, it is just the journal of the National Geographic Society--not a scientific (=research) journal. Their articles are vetted by editors, not by masked review. Sometimes that has come back to bite them--look at the recent chicken dinosaur from China.
::That said, I still think National Geographic is a more scholarly, reliable, authoritative source than many cited on this site.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean putting the NGC link back?
Yes, of course.
If the linked article is relevant to this topic it should be included, even if it does not agree with Mr. Schlafy's view.[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:AllFish's critique is correct (I shouldn't have called it a journal - not peer reviewed), but I think his conclusion is, too - the publication is still more scientific than the current "no publication" citations on the page. I'll add another citation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, why'd you yell at me for removal without discussion, and then remove information without discussion?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Geography ==

"[L]arge islands such as Cape Cod and Long Island" caught my attention. Cape Cod is not an island, it is, as the name implies, a cape, or a peninsula. Although one could technically argue that it is a [[man-made]] island due to the canal cut across it, that would make one silly. Perhaps it should read "large deposition formations such as Cape Cod and Long Island" [[User:Human|Human]] 14:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== article locked to protect the young ==

It should be reverted all the way back to my original version. It was succinct and young earth-friendly. It also wasn't clunky and clumsy.

The current version spend more time explaining what one isn't than what one is. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== An "Ice Age" is an age, not a theory ==

Can we at least have a version of this page which doesn't claim that an ice age is a theory? They're ages (time periods) which may or may not have occured. That first sentence just hurts my head. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

ACLU

2007-04-29T01:55:36Z

Jtl: move 70-87 year old items of primarily historical interest to less prominent position in the article (see talk)

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization founded in 1920 and devoted to protecting the civil liberties of Americans and defending them in court.

==ACLU Against the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering. In 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this National Boy Scout Jamboree.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

==ACLU and the Establishment Clause==
ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal of the Ten Commandments from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

Occasionally an ACLU chapter does side with a Christian student. The ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref>

==ACLU, Evolution, and the Establishment Clause==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage and the Homosexual Agenda==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that reduce the number of abortions, such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the mother herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion.

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]]{{fact-political}}.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==
In 1934, Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

Baldwin and the ACLU purged any open communists from its ranks in 1940.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*Pro-ACLU sites:
**http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberal activists]]

Talk:ACLU

2007-04-29T01:41:06Z

Jtl:

{{unprotected|6 April 2007 |RSchlafly}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:ACLU

2007-04-29T00:33:54Z

Jtl: When is an amicus brief worth mentioning?

Ice age

2007-04-28T18:55:59Z

Jtl: finish up the tense change in the defining sentence

An '''Ice Age''' is when the [[earth]]'s average [[temperature]] drops so much that [[glacier]]s extends into what we think of as [[temperate]] zones and sea levels recede due to the loss of water to the ice.

== Secular Geology's Perspective ==
The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees on the existence of several ice ages.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/ice_age.html A Short Bibliography]</ref><ref>NOVA, "Cracking the Ice Age," linked [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/ here], is an accessible presentation of the science behind the Ice Age.</ref> This is strongly supported by evidence gathered from climate scientists working in the antarctic, on ice cores which are said to reflect temperature patterns as far back as 740,000 years ago.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1110_041110_antarctic_ice_2.html Climate-Change Forecast? Ask the Antarctic Ice], National Geographic</ref> The human diaspora during & after the ice age is also well recorded.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html Humans Sped to U.K. After Ice Age, Study Says], National Geographic</ref>

== Creationist Critique ==
The theory of an Ice Age is relatively new in the history of science. The theory developed as humanistic scientists sought an explanation for evidence that conflicts with their view that Earth must be over a billion years old, and their view that no [[Flood]] occurred. The Ice Age theory seeks to explain the heavily eroded and rounded mountains of the northern [[Appalachian]] chain and large islands such as [[Cape Cod]] and [[Long Island]].

According to the theory, the lowered sea levels may help explain for humanists the enigma of how man is found around the planet. Under this view, there were land bridges where now all we see is ocean and that Asians migrated to North America to become Native Americans and Europeans populated the British Isles in a similar manner. Note, however, blood types and other characteristics suggest there is no connection between American Indians and Asians.{{fact-scientific}}

== References ==
<references/>

==See Also==

[[Date of Creation]]

[[Category:Earth science]]

Ice age

2007-04-28T16:45:29Z

Jtl: dropps spelling correctio

An '''Ice Age''' is a hypothetical period of time during which the [[earth]]'s average [[temperature]] drops so much that [[glacier]]s extend into what we think of as [[temperate]] zones and that sea levels recede due to the loss of water to the ice.

The theory of an Ice Age is relatively new in the history of science. The theory developed as humanistic scientists sought an explanation for evidence that conflicts with their view that Earth must be over a billion years old, and their view that no [[Flood]] occurred. The Ice Age theory seeks to explain the heavily eroded and rounded mountains of the northern [[Appalachian]] chain and large islands such as [[Cape Cod]] and [[Long Island]].

According to the theory, the lowered sea levels may help explain for humanists the enigma of how man is found around the planet. Under this view, there were land bridges where now all we see is ocean and that Asians migrated to North America to become Native Americans and Europeans populated the British Isles in a similar manner. Note, however, blood types and other characteristics suggest there is no connection between American Indians and Asians.

==See Also==

[[Date of Creation]]

[[Category:Earth science]]

Ice age

2007-04-28T16:45:06Z

Jtl: Correct 'developed' spelling and the basic definition (an ice age is a period of time, not a theory); other problems remain.

An '''Ice Age''' is a hypothetical period of time during which the [[earth]]'s average [[temperature]] dropps so much that [[glacier]]s extend into what we think of as [[temperate]] zones and that sea levels recede due to the loss of water to the ice.

The theory of an Ice Age is relatively new in the history of science. The theory developed as humanistic scientists sought an explanation for evidence that conflicts with their view that Earth must be over a billion years old, and their view that no [[Flood]] occurred. The Ice Age theory seeks to explain the heavily eroded and rounded mountains of the northern [[Appalachian]] chain and large islands such as [[Cape Cod]] and [[Long Island]].

According to the theory, the lowered sea levels may help explain for humanists the enigma of how man is found around the planet. Under this view, there were land bridges where now all we see is ocean and that Asians migrated to North America to become Native Americans and Europeans populated the British Isles in a similar manner. Note, however, blood types and other characteristics suggest there is no connection between American Indians and Asians.

==See Also==

[[Date of Creation]]

[[Category:Earth science]]

Talk:Nylon-eating bacteria

2007-04-28T16:11:41Z

Jtl: Which creationists and ID proponents deny that mutations can create new information and new functions?

:"The latter claim that the plasmids in the bacteria allow for it to adapt to different food sources, and that this is an irreducibly complex feature"

Which would simply prove that IC features can evolve. Is there a creationist response to this experiment which isn't actually self-defeating? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Whoever put that in....do they even know what the heck a plasmid is??? It makes ZERO sense to anyone with a shred of knowledge in biology [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I know. I was trying to get the gist across, but I am admittedly a bad person to try and push an ID argument. Maybe someone else has a different argument that supports their claim more forcefully? Also, I was just trying to put something in here that didn't make the claim that the bacteria sat around dormant until the invention of nylon. Any biologist that can make better sense of this is more than welcome to fix what I wrote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If someone has a link to a discussion from an ID perspective I will try.... [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Here ya go. Have fun... [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp]--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the citation. It is VERY interesting, and well written. It does, however, have some flaws. Now, this would be better flushed out by a bench researcher, as my bench days are over, but let me just leave a few points. First, the article actually gives no evidence that evolution/NS did not play a part here. Most of their specific complaints are invalid. For example:
Point 1) They point to the usual argument that it "suggests design". This is an opinion.
Point 2) This is a simple dismissal of evolution without evidence.
Point 3) They say chances are very low of the mutated plamid naturally occuring, and give a number (unclear from where) of 1 x10 to the 12th. Well, of couse chances are very low. That is why bacteria are so darned good for observing natural selection. With their short generation time, and logarithmic growth phase, even unlikely events can occur with reasonable frequency. If you have, say, 10 (a very small number) of bacteria exposed to a new environment, over the course of a few DAYS, there will be BILLIONS of daughter cells exposed to the new environment, giving plenty of opportunity for a new mutation to occur and be amplified.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The reference mentioned above suggests that there was some sort of adaptation. How did the information for the adaptation get transferred from one generation to the next? If the bacteria get taken out of their nylon-only environment and get put in an environment of plentiful multiple food sources, do they continue to feed on the nylon? I stand by my original statement that they were waiting around for the nylon. --[[User:Descartes|Descartes]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is fairly basic microbiology and genetics. There is a limited, but large, amount of information in a genome. Mutation over time allows for novel genes (and their products). It takes many, many generations, as non-lethal mutations are not frequent. The individual bacteria did not "adapt"--they either divided or died. If they survived to divide, the information in their genome was replicated via binary fission/mitosis and the two daughter cells in turn did the same. INDIVIDUAL CELLS DID NOT ADAPT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, THE POPULATION DID. If the population is moved out of a nylon-only environment, or any other environment with different selective pressures, the population either adapts as above, or dies out. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Darn it, it happens every time. I give a sensible response, and my discussant disappears. It only seems to happen when I make a good, clear point about biology/evolution. Why does this always happen to me?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Don't puff up your chest and beat it just yet, Mister. I have to wait until my boss is not looking to "reappear". And as it happens, I'm headed out for the weekend. :-) --[[User:Descartes|Descartes]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I look forward to hearing back from you.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yawn...still waing Rene. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 23:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm suprised you haven't caught on. Why would I create this article in the first place unless I understood its importance in explaining evolution? Check out my additions to "See Also". Also, have you noticed my username? --[[User:Descartes|Descartes]] 14:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy==

Cut from article:

:The former believe it is an evolutionary example of a population changing in response to environmental selective pressures.<ref>http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm</ref> The latter claim that the bacteria have some way to adjust to new food sources without needing to evolve.

Can someone explain the sides better? I didn't really glean much from the summary of the NMSR site. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I like your edit. I can help you out a little here. Evolution is sometimes complicated, and requires lots of words, which is why i stated it as above. Also, the ID folks like to get into this faux-information theory stuff which really isnt relevant. The main debate is that ID folks feel that there is no way to explain the phenomenon naturally, and Evos believe there is, e.g. as explained above. I can restate it here if you like.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I think, in fact, I explained it well above, but I can try again...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor citations ==

With http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp, this is a secondary source itself offering an interpretation of several articles. http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/ is a blog that is a tetrirary source itself - it is reporting on a news article and is presenting opinions. Please cite primary sources and be prepared to give an analysis of them yourself to show how they support the argument. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Needless to say, they are not my citations. I'd be happy if they were dropped.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Which creationists and ID proponents deny that mutations can create new information and new functions? ==

Lots and lots of what one might term "amateur creationists" make this claim, and finding a source sufficient to show that the claim is made at all is trivial. ''viz'':
"There are two fallacies in this argument. The first is that random changes in existing information can create new information."; "If you find a message that contains information (such as the location of Amelia Earhart's airplane), someone had to write it. Random chance does not produce information. If there is information coded in a DNA molecule (and there certainly is), an intelligent source must have put it there. There is no scientific evidence that even a small amount of information can be generated by chance. There is scientific evidence that random changes to a message can remove information. Mutations might remove information, but they will never create it." -- [http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i12f.htm Do-While Jones] in the "Science Against Evolution" journal.

"It must be noted that the process of natural selection deletes genetic information (the weaker traits), it cannot create new information required by the evolutionary theory."; "But random mutations never add new information, they can only decrease information. Therefore most mutations are harmful, and many of them lethal." -- [http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/EvolutionTheory.html Evolution Theory] article at cryingvoice.com.

More satisfying, however, is to try to trace it back to the 'big names'.

Answers in Genesis [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_bflnPSo2GcJ:www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/not_by_chance.asp+site:answersingenesis.org+%22create+information%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a comes close] ("The real issue concerns mutations, the alleged source of all the new information needed for evolution. With a detailed probabilistic analysis, based upon the standard evolutionary mathematics of such authorities as Gaylord Simpson and Fisher, Spetner shows that the chance of getting the required mutations for such ‘cumulative selection’ is just way too small.") and closer, but wordier, [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VGd5nPp6d9MJ:www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/design.asp+site:answersingenesis.org+%22create+information%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a here]: "The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: ‘There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing’ (this issue, p. 42). Information scientist Werner Gitt has demonstrated that the laws of nature pertaining to information show that, in all known cases, information requires an intelligent message sender," and [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0RYOMOvlY8oJ:www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0407apes.asp+site:answersingenesis.org+%22create+information%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a here]: "But since observational science has never revealed any natural process that can create information, i.e. ‘write the program,’ the most logical conclusion is that the programs themselves, i.e. the information in the original created kinds, arose from an intelligent mind—the same way programs arise today."

AiG explicitely says "Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones." [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Oi0JjmREsOYJ:www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/appendix1.asp+%22cannot+create+new+information%22+%22ken+ham%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a here].

The claim is implicit in ''not a single <nowiki>[</nowiki>Darwinist] has answered Egnor’s question: How does Darwinian mechanisms produce new biological information?'' from [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/asking_the_right_questions_bri.html The Discovery Institute]. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

ASCII

2007-04-28T00:55:06Z

Jtl: designed only for _US_ English -- missing the Pound symbol at the very least, plus some ligature-like-characters which are/were common in British English

'''ASCII''' is a common historical [[character encoding]], designed to represent US English text in digital form. The acronym stands for American Standard Code for Information Interchange. Most of the character encodings in common current use are [[proper superset]]s of ASCII: these include the [[ISO 8859]] family of encodings, the [[Windows 1252]] code page and the [[UTF-8]] encoding of the [[Unicode]] character set.

Each character is assigned a number from 0 to 127. As well the 26 letters of the [[English alphabet]] in upper and lower case, many common punctuation symbols are assigned codes, as well as [[control characters]], such as backspace, carriage return and linefeed.

Because there are 128 separate codes, an ASCII character can be represented by a [[signed char]] type in the [[C]] programming language.

[[Category:Information technology]]

ASCII

2007-04-28T00:32:43Z

Jtl: DEL/rubout isn't technically a control character; ranges 0-127, not 128; there is no standardized 'newline' character

'''ASCII''' is a common historical [[character encoding]], designed to represent English text in digital form. The acronym stands for American Standard Code for Information Interchange. Most of the character encodings in common current use are [[proper superset]]s of ASCII: these include the [[ISO 8859]] family of encodings, the [[Windows 1252]] code page and the [[UTF-8]] encoding of the [[Unicode]] character set.

Each character is assigned a number from 0 to 127. As well the 26 letters of the [[English alphabet]] in upper and lower case, many common punctuation symbols are assigned codes, as well as [[control characters]], such as backspace, carriage return and linefeed.

Because there are 128 separate codes, an ASCII character can be represented by a [[signed char]] type in the [[C]] programming language.

Talk:Deceit

2007-04-27T19:19:05Z

Jtl:

University of Wisconsin-Madison

2007-04-26T01:49:46Z

Jtl: requires a Shakespeare course

[[image:Siftingwinnowing.jpg|right|300px|thumb|"Sifting and Winnowing" statement]]
The University of Wisconsin-Madison is the flagship campus of the University of Wisconsin system. It is a large public research university, founded in 1848, with a current enrollment of about forty thousand students.

[[Aldo Leopold]] wrote his classic 1949 work, ''A Sand County Almanac,'' while a professor of game management at the University of Wisconsin.

The University of Wisconsin was a pioneer in the patenting and commercial licensing of university research. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) was founded in 1925 to licence professor Harry Steenbock's process for fortifying milk with vitamin D.<ref>[http://www.warf.org/about/index.jsp?cid=26 Our History], WARF website</ref> Warfarin, a drug used to prevent blood clots, is named for WARF. As of 1999 it was the eleventh-most-prescribed drug in the United States.<ref>[http://www.uwalumni.com/home/coolstuff/askabe/askabe_people/askabe_people.aspx Ask Abe Archives - People], UW website</ref>

A plaque on Bascom Hall quotes a statement from an 1894 Board of Regents report:
:Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin shall ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.

[[image:Birgejuday.jpg|left|thumb|E. A. Birge and Chancey Juday, UW limnology pioneers, operating a plankton trap]]
In North America, [[limnology]] (the scientific study of lakes) was founded by E. A. Birge and Chancey Juday at the University of Wisconsin, which remains prominent in the field.<ref>[http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/UW/subcollections/LimnHistAbout.shtml The History of Limnology], University of Wisconsin website</ref>

It has long been one of the most liberal institutions in the United States.{{fact}} It has a relatively low representation of minorities in its enrollment—11.5%—compared to 12.7% for the state of Wisconsin.

It is the birthplace of both the [[political correctness]] and the [[Critical legal studies]] movements.{{fact}} It is the reason that Wisconsin, which has a conservative population, has a pro-gun control governor and two liberal U.S. Senators. John Kerry carried Wisconsin in 2004 on the strength of the vote in Madison, where the large University is located.

It is one of only 15 US Universities found to require a course in Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English.<ref>http://www.goacta.org/press/Press%20Releases/4-19-07PR.htm</ref>

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, who received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has represented the district since 1998, and as its state representative prior to that.
== References ==

<references/>

Seattle

2007-04-26T00:59:53Z

Jtl: east-side suburbs, too

'''Seattle''' is the largest city in [[Washington]]. It was named after [[Chief Sealth]], a Suqamish/Duwamish [[Native American]] leader. Seattle, Washington (47.606N. -122.33W) is the largest city in Washington, and in the Pacific Northwest. It was officially incorporated in 1889, but had been a town since 1851, when a group of pioneers from Illinois settled West Seattle, a peninsula within the current city limits to the west. The population as of 2006 is 578,700. The city has generally been at capacity since about 1960, since the population hasn't gone up more than 10,000 people since then. However, the population has increased into the suburbs north toward [[Everett]], south toward [[Seatac]] and [[Tacoma]] and east (across [[Lake Washington]]) to [[Mercer Island]], [[Kirkland]], [[Redmond]], [[Bellevue]] and [[Issaquah]].

==Demographics==
The racial makeup of the city was 67.1 percent White, 16.6 percent Asian, 9.7 percent African American, 2.38 percent from other races, 1.00 percent Native American, 0.50 percent Pacific Islander, and 4.46 percent from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.3 percent of the population. Seattle's median household income is $45,736, where the national average is $41,994. The median age of Seattle residents is 37.9. 36.16% of Seattleites are married, 11.5 are divorced, and one third of those who are married have children. The density is 6,886 people per square mile. Seattle was also rated the most educated city in the United States, with 52.7% of it's residents over age 25 holding at least a bachelor's degree. {{fact}}

==Miscellaneous==

Landmarks include the [[Space Needle]] and the [[Pike Place Market]].

In 1999 Seattle hosted the [[WTO]] at the Washington Convention Center on Pine Street, and found itself the locus of a large protest by anti-globalist activists. Very rapidly, however, anarchists took advantage of the fact that the police were overwhelmed and began destroying property and looting storefronts. The violence of the "Battle of Seattle" raged for several days.

On Ash Wednesday 2001, Seattle sustained damage in the large Nisqually Quake, which cracked the Highway 99 Viaduct and destroyed some vintage brick buildings in Pioneer Square.

Seattle is the home of the [[Discovery Institute]], an influential conservative think tank.

==Sports==

Seattle is the home of the [[NFL]]'s [[Seattle Seahawks]], the [[NBA]]'s Seattle SuperSonics, and Major League Baseball's Seattle Mariners.

[[Category:US Towns and Cities]]

Alec Baldwin

2007-04-24T07:50:30Z

Jtl: I don't know if the allegations are true, but it is certainly true that physical abuse was alleged and that reporters published the claims

'''Alexander Rae Baldwin III ''' is an actor. The eldest of the Baldwin brothers, Alec Baldwin has starred in many movies and television shows such as ''[[30 Rock]]'', and has hosted ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' 13 times.

Baldwin was formerly married to actress [[Kim Basinger]]. The ensuing divorce proceedings and custody battle have been a source of fodder for reporters, who have published claims by Basinger that she was physically and emotionally abused by Baldwin during the course of their [[marriage]]<ref>http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/baldwin.%20basinger%20divorce%20to%20get%20ugly</ref>. As of May 4, 2007 a court will be considering whether Baldwin should be allowed continued visitation with his daughter in light of an expletive-strewn, threatening phone message he left to his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland.<ref>http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3</ref>

On the recording, Baldwin can be heard berating his young daughter, "You are a rude, thoughtless little pig." "You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being," he says, apparently upset that she did not answer her phone for a planned call. He further says, "I don't give a damn that you're 12 years old, or 11 years old, or that you're a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do as far as I'm concerned."<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070420/D8OK22H82.html</ref>

According to TMZ.com, a family law judge was so alarmed after hearing the tape, she has temporarily barred Baldwin from having any contact with his child.

== References ==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/ TMZ.com article on the troubled actor/activist]

Talk:Adultery

2007-04-23T01:24:31Z

Jtl:

{{protected|RSchlafly}}
==Discussion==
I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

:And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?

:What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

:: As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

:I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans

::I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.

::And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ruin trust ==
Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gender Bias ==

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

: You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

:Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.

:I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of [[love]] which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.

:As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.

:Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

RShlalfy - I'm back. However, I'm not 'he', I'm 'she'. And I have a question for you. Given that I am a 50-something year old Conservative Christian woman, whose husband had an 'unnatural' relationship with another woman, for which I subsequently divorced him, I'm interested to know this: since, according to your definition, what my husband did was NOT adultery, perhaps you could provide me with a term for it? Certainly the court agreed with me that it was adultery, but since you're obviously so knowledgeable about these things, I wonder what you'd call it? [[User:50something|50something]], 10.40am, PST, 4/22/07

: Did the court find that he committed the crime of adultery? What state do you live? Most states don't care about such things. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the limits of my patience RSchalfy. Yes, the court found him guilty of adultery. Yes, every other reference book I have ever consulted considers it adultery. You alone, you Rock of Ages, you Sage of Our Nation, seem to be the only one with your head stuck in the sand. You look ridiculous RSchalfy. Might I ask what age you are? And finally, again I repeat my question - was what my husband did not adultery? 50something.

: Was he sentenced for the adultery? Was he punished in some other way? Was the other woman married? What state was it? I live in California, where no one ever gets found guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What age are you? I've given you enough information. And anyway, my business is not the point here. Adultery is committed by both men and women, and the article should state that. Your position is utterly ridiculous. 50something

Oh, oh, this is brilliant. You just lokced the page, didn't you?! AHHAHAHHAH this just proves what an utter farce this site is. You just popped back the definition that suits you, despite it being absurd, and locked the page. If that doesn't say everything about this pointless, ego-driven site, I don't know what does. [[User:50something|50something]]

I can't believe it - you also removed my own perfectly good reference, The Catholic Encyclodia reference. You asked for a reference, I provided one. It didn't suit your view, so you removed it. Here's another one, from Christian Answers.: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html. Your definition here makes it the nly place I can find such a definition on the internet. [[User:50something|50something]]

So now, you and you alone continue to edit the article, despite the page being locked? So, this entire site isn't a community encyclopedia, but is instead basically an essay, written entirely by you? On what basis do you think this makes your "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" a useful resource? Why don't you just call it "The Schalfly Brother's View of The World"? [[User:50something|50something]]

: Yes, I locked the page to stop your repeated false edits. If you tell me more about your husband's situation, then perhaps I can find the definition in the law that was applied to him.
: It sounds to me as if you are using this article to justify walking out on your marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:28, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now you're telling me that I was the one who was wrong? You're brilliant, I'm coming around to liking your perverted logic. Yes, when I walked in on my preacher husband with his trashy girlfriend in her fishnet stockings, I was the one who was in the wrong, yes? OK, I'm very sorry, I should have tried harder, I wish I'd had your number when I needed counselling.

So how do you respond to either of these references I provided (which you've removed, before locking the page):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

Finally, since you refuse to provide me with any information about you, you ask me for such personal details and make such slander? In my day young pups like you would get a good thrashing for speaking to your elders - and a woman of Faith - like this. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::RSchlafley, your comments here are disgusting. Whatever Leviticus has to to say about adultery, modern law AND common usage applies it to both husbands and wives. Personally insulting a woman because she was the victim --not the perpetrator -- of adultery is especially contemptible. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you for those kind words of support PF Fox. At least some here want to establish a safe, kind, loving Christian community. Freaks like RScahalfy (and a few others) do Christ's work no good, no good at all. And the immaturity! I now realise why Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource - just one look at the wonderfully fair and balanced page for Adultery there tells you it is written by people who care about ALL views, not just their own bigoted little guttersniping. I have no good words to say about my experience here, I'm sorry to say - as this is much more like what I thought would be my 'natural' community. How disappointing. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::I should perhaps tell you that I'm not a Christian, but that I do know that RSchlafly's views are not typical of Christians. Most of the Christians I know are kind enough and well-informed enough to grasp the difference between the Old Testament definition of "adultery" and the manner in which the word is used and applied today, both legally and in everyday conversation. I'm very sorry if your experience here opened any wounds and caused you pain. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Catholic Encyclopedia==
*''Discussion moved from'' [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Adultery]]
This article has been vandalised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. {{Unsigned|50something}}

:So the ''Washington Post'' trumps the Book of Leviticus, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122101&oldid=122095] is that the argument? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], and Christian Answers [http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html], both of which agree with me. [[User:50something|50something]]
:Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the ''Washington Post'', and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? [[User:50something|50something]]

:OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::We should continue at [[Talk:Adultery]]. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==My view==
50something's edit was on the money: adultery is bad news for anyone practicing it, and what she included in this edit happens to agree with what the Bible says about it. Now, since this is Conservapedia, and according to Andy this site has to uphold traditional family values, I strongly insist that this subject be expanded to describe what adultery means, what constitutes it (any sex outside marriage), and what should be done to prevent it. 50something is trying to do just that, and she should be given credit and thanks for it.

So, let's everyone calm down and work on making this article as good as it can possibly be. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does the text, "Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart..." conflict with 50something's claim the mainspace is not gender neutral? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Both man and woman are fully capable of comitting adultery. When the woman was dragged before Jesus in John ch. 8, where was the man at? Only she was accused of adultery, and Jesus was told the proper method of taking care of someone who commited adultery was by stoning. Now what was Jesus' response?
:::''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.''
::Think about that here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I put something like that into the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122198&oldid=122130] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:(a) The version RSchlafly wrote is unambiguous and does not make a "gender bias" claim; (b) the 1911 encyclopdia cite is a Wiki mirror, so I'm not sure we can keep it, especially in ''this'' arrticle. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, what is the purpose of adultery as pertaining to this article? Is it a "man-thing" only? A "woman-thing"? Or are both parties guilty when practicing it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::I could be wrong in mis-reading the article, but I felt, based on 50something's statements vs RSchlafly's, that the article as it stood was leaning toward the man being "not guilty" in adultery. When I quoted the Bible account of Jesus above, some authorities, as well as pastors (and myself) cite the possibility that Jesus knew they were also being one-sided with the woman ''only'' being the one guilty of adultery (and Jesus would have known everything!). And since Jesus boiled adultery down to even thinking about it, it stands to reason that every sexual act outside of the marriage bond between husband and wife constitutes adultery. So, my suggestion would be to arrange the article as to Old Testament/New Testament descriptions of what constitutes adultery, modern laws in force, and anything else...which what I think 50something was trying to do in the first place.

== Toward avoiding double standards ==

Gentlemen: What seems unclear is what Roger Schlafly meant by "Biblical adultery."

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, adultery is an intimate relation between two people, ''either one of whom'' is married to someone else.

The HIBD goes on to say that in the [[Old Testament]], adultery was understood in the context of a man having an intimate relationship with another man's wife, and the man involved had committed an offense against the woman's husband.

In the [[New Testament]], three things changed:
# Adultery was a matter of lustful intent and did not require an actual act. See {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}.
# Very clearly, adultery is definable as unfaithfulness on the part of ''either the husband or the wife.'' [[Paul]], for example, states that a man ought to have one wife only, and even that a man having gone through more than one wife (for reasons other than bereavement) disqualifies himself from serving in the clergy.
# [[Divorce]] was now an offense just as grave as adultery.

I suggest that the article address OT and NT law on the subject, in addition to citing legal precedents in American and British family law.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:At the risk of fomenting sectarian strife, I will second this. Unless Mr. Schlafly has a strong objection, this information should be incorporated - particularly the definition provided by the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is the full MLA-style reference:
Michael Fink. "Entry on Adultery." ''The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee|TN]]: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003 (ISBN 0805428364). pp. 30-31.
--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: What exactly is the info to be incorporated? The article already addresses OT and NT law on adultery. Is something incorrect? 50something cited the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], but that article confirms that in the Ten Commandments, "adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery". The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary apparently says the same thing. I realize that some people are ideologically opposed to "double standards", but it is important to explain accurately just what was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Are you sure about that, Roger? I hold the HIBD in my hand, and as I read it, adultery means any illicit activity if ''either partner'' is currently married to someone else.
::Besides: who said anything about ''not'' explaining what was commonly meant in the OT? All I'm saying is that the term ''adultery'' is fairly broad and has more than one meaning.
::As an example of what I mean, and what I suggest, I recommend my articles on [[sin]] and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]. As you can see, I discuss the concept "sin" in the Biblical sense and in the broader philosophical context.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interpretation of the New Testament by Christian author Joe Beam:

:In the New Testament anyone married to one person but sleeping with another committed adultery. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [http://www.familydynamics.net/sexandthebible.htm]

I don't mean to start (or prolong) an argument. I'm a guest here. But there is an interesting discussion on the differences between OT and NT standards [http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=153 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: That article says, "In the Old Testament, 'adultery' properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery." It also mentions that the NT reiterates the OT commandment against adultery in Mark 10:19 and Romans 13:9. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not certain anything "changed" in the New Testament; adultry was always considered wrong and evil, even ''prior'' to Moses and the Ten Commandments. Genesis 39:7-9 (prior to Exodus & Deutornomy) states,
:::7...his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife...9... thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2039;&version=9;] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Modern law==
The article says that adultery is punishable under "modern law". Is this the case throughout the US anymore? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: The cited Wash Post article says that a Virginia lawyer got a misdemeanor conviction, and had to do 20 hours of community service. Such punishments are extremely rare and mild. For most practical purposes, adultery is now legal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Changing times==

The way I always heard it was that Judaism was updated by the Gospel of Christ, so it's probably safe to say that the "male exemption" of the Old Testament was in force then.

But does it still apply to the people of God in modern times? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:I just don't see where a male exemption occurs (KJV); can you be more specific? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Me neither, but I've been brainwashed by feminists. You might ask RSchlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I wouldn't call it a "male exemption". A man who has sexual intercourse with another man's wife was guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::: But what about a married man who had relations with an umarried woman? Any adultery there? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Lycanthropy

2007-04-22T00:46:37Z

Jtl: evolutionary perspective

'''Lycanthropy''' is the mythical ability for a human being to transform into some sort of animal, most famously a [[wolf]]. From the [[Latin]] ''Lycans'' for wolf and ''arthron'' for man.

==Lycanthropy in the Bible?==
In the book of the prophet Daniel, chapter 5 we can read a possible instance of actual lycanthropy:
18O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:19And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.20But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:21And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

==Evolutionary Perspective==
From an Evolutionary perspective, it is of course nonsense to suggest that a human could turn into a wolf or vice versa; such a creature would have to have descended from both humans and wolves.

Instead, it's clearly a case of parallel evolution (akin to dolphins and some sharks having similar shapes); a were-wolf doesn't actually turn into a ''wolf''; it merely turns into a ''wolf-like form''. This can be compared with the transformation of a tadpole into a frog or a caterpillar into a moth. The only distinguishing characteristics of lycanthropy are
* the reversibility of the transformation
* the speed of the transformation
* the supposed link in some cases to full moons.

We can deal with these individually.

A non-reversible lycanthropic transformation would be strongly selected against for at least one obvious reason: the difficulty of child-rearing. Unlike true wolves, whose pups are born able to walk and quickly reach a level of maturity necessary to feed themselves, human/lycanthropic children/pups share the standard human multi-year maturation process. A lycanthropic human stuck in wolf-like form is severely restricted in child-rearing ability; for instance, such simple acts as nursing, burping and changing a diaper are beyond the capability of the paw-formed hand. More importantly, the wold-form father cannot teach his daughters about the benefits of abstinence, and generally is not granted admittance to [[purity prom]]s. Thus, only reversible lycanthropy is selected for.

Second, speed of transformation: since the selection benefits of human lycanthropy revolve primarily around replacing the standard human weakness in the face of attack with the benefits of protective fur, built-in weapons, speed and aggression, the change must happen fast enough to be a benefit in the face of immediate danger. Thus, slow transformation is selected against.

The full moon link is the easiest of all to deal with, since it's entirely a case of false correlation. Actually it's an artifact of semi-modern life. Remember that the transformation is selected for in case of danger; it turns out that the hormones which control this are also triggered by other forms of stress. In modern life, with monthly rents and mortgage payments, there's a monthly stress cycle. This translates into a monthly involuntary transformation cycle. <ref>The small discrepancy between the average 30.4-day month and the 28.5-day lunar cycle is simply experimental roundoff error and can be ignored.</ref>

Conservapedia:Looming copyright problems

2007-04-20T01:29:29Z

Jtl: GFDL = Gnu Free Documentation License; GDFL = typo

Conservapedia currently does not require documentation of licensing on the images that are uploaded. This potentialy opens itself up to a significant copyright nightmare.

With uploading of images, if these images are likewise licensed under [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] there may be conflicts of licensing (such as that from a microstock site). Additionally there is lack of attribution to the artist and no indication of the copyright of the image.

Examples of potential problems:
* [[:Image:Washington-rain-forest.png]] shows up in a search at http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=washington+rain+forest&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2 -- someone else owns the copyright to this image. Not sure who, but its likely not the uploader.
* [[:Image:Koala-cub.jpg]] is from http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/animals/wallpaper/koala-cub.html which is certainly a registered copyright.
* [[:Image:Grapes.jpg]] is from http://norman.walsh.name/2000/09/images/grapes.html and Copyright © 2003–2007 Norman Walsh. This image is licensed under a Creative Commons license which requires attribution (in conflict with [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] item #1 - "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content on this site with or without attribution.")
* [[:Image:Jrogh.jpg]] is licensed under the GFDL. Under section 5, this may only be combined with other material that is also under the GFDL.

Talk:Oklahoma City Bombing

2007-04-19T06:12:01Z

Jtl: New page: D'oh -- thanks for correcting the name of the building, Hoji. That was just embarassing. --~~~~

D'oh -- thanks for correcting the name of the building, Hoji. That was just embarassing. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-19T01:51:57Z

Jtl:

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== Unblocking Users, Without Consult Or Notice.... ==

I have asked before, nicely. Please stop. Andy concurs. Check if you must, and I know you will! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

== Pledge ==

I have posted a version of the "Pledge" I can accept on my user page. One that includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==New Name==

This is MountainDew's new name. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
==A Private Thank you==
For fixing up [[Nancy Reagan]].[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*Yes, Rob, he should be thanked, because I linked him to it, so he could. I don't have good enough skills with wiki to do it. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Abuse ==

I didn't file the original complaint; I don't remember who did. The complaint seemed to me to have validity, at least enough to be worth responding to -- it alleged specific violations of the commandments. TK removed it without comment. The original poster then posted to that effect in the 'dealt with' section; this time, TK removed it with a commit comment of "unsigned will be removed". I took him at his implied word, and reposted the (accurate) 'no action taken' comment, this time signed. TK removed it with no explanation. I posted it a second time, hoping for at least an explanation for why it was removed. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

*Andy is the owner, Jtl. I don't have to explain my removals. But such things, other than just making a show to stir the pot, are better resolved by posting on his own page, or via email. And your posting on another Sysop's page, not mine, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Geo.prld asked me why I posted it; I was answering him. His talk page seemed an appropriate place (the other obvious choice being my talk page, where he asked; I chose his so that he was more likely to see the answer quickly). And no, you obviously don't have to explain your choices, but seeing as how you did once (or at least appeared to), I thought you might choose to again. Removing a comment for not being signed, if you would have removed it even if it was signed, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Pot, kettle? You merely did it to stir the pot. You have been warned, now. The "Abuse" page is not a vehicle for your (or anyone else's) idealogical battles. If you think posting about Andy there embarasses him, you are really misguided. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What am I being warned for? Wanting a record of the sysops declining to reply to a commandment-based complaint about an administrator? Or for answering Geo's direct question to me on his talk page rather than yours? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

*You have been answered, and my reason explained. Now, you have three choices here; make your complaint on Andy's personal page, email him asking, politely, for an explanation, or continue to revert on the Abuse page, and take your chances with me. Personally, I would choose the latter two. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: If I have to ask, then the answer wasn't clear enough. This may well be on my side rather than yours, I admit. What am I being warned for? (and you meant 'former', not 'latter', right?) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-19T01:42:28Z

Jtl:

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-19T01:32:30Z

Jtl:

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-19T01:25:04Z

Jtl: Conservapedia:Abuse

Talk:Drew Barrymore

2007-04-19T01:07:11Z

Jtl: New page: She's also pretty well known for her childhood (not even teen-years) difficulties with drugs and alcohol, but I'm not sure whether that would be considered gossip or not. --~~~~

She's also pretty well known for her childhood (not even teen-years) difficulties with drugs and alcohol, but I'm not sure whether that would be considered gossip or not. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Drew Barrymore

2007-04-19T01:06:02Z

Jtl:

'''Drew Barrymore''' (22 February 1975-) is an American actress best known for romantic comedy roles. She came to early prominence with her starring role in [[E.T.]] (1982) and did well in [[Ever After]] (1998) and [[50 First Dates]] (2004).

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-19T00:48:39Z

Jtl:

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
#{{user|Vossy}} created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|AmeriCan}} - disinformation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=112288] -- [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:::If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#::::Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for [[Producerism]], copied in full from [http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/producerism.htm]. His contributions to [[Canada]] and [[hijab]], among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
#{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
#*This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
#The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
#{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
#{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
#{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:I misunderstood I guess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
# Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#* 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
#* 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
#{{user|Hillarycliton}} - blocked, all five contribs reverted --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Save Our Values}}
#*No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
#*I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#*Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
#[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
#*18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
#{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
#{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
#{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
#{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
#{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Aschlafly}} Complaint removed by {{user|TK}}. No action taken --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT); removed again by TK (no reason given) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:National Rifle Association

2007-04-18T03:28:08Z

Jtl:

Where did the this kkk information come from? That is not true.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::NRA helped blacks defend against KKK.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::not according to their website. Furthermore, should the word "especially" be used in that sentence?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::Charlton Heston, president of NRA was buddy with Martin Luther King Jr.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

now it looks better, thank you[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:The NRA cite says nothing about this, infact, it appears Black Codes in several Southern states prohibited Blacks from owning fire arms. [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=137] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: nor is the Klan mentioned on [http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx the NRA's official 'about us' history]; in fact, all the early activity mentioned was in the North (New York, New Jersey, Ohio). According to the search feature on their site, the only two pages on nra.org that mention ''ku klux klan'' are http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=105&issue=011 and http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=16&issue=020 . The first one of those -- an essay complaining about the racism they think Michael Moore accuses them of -- would have been a natural place to mention it, if it were in fact true. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:National Rifle Association

2007-04-18T03:23:22Z

Jtl:

Talk:National Rifle Association

2007-04-18T03:22:50Z

Jtl:

Talk:Nikolai I. Lobachevsky

2007-04-17T04:53:45Z

Jtl:

Why'd you remove the Lehrer instance? For many of us, that's ''why'' he's notable. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:16, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Then just restore it, its easy to do that. --[[User:Pnt|Pnt]] 00:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
: edit wars are frowned upon here and i wanted to make sure you didn't have a good reason, first. I've reverted it now. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Nikolai I. Lobachevsky

2007-04-17T04:52:59Z

Jtl: restore Lehrer mention

[[Image:Obachevsky.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Nikolai I. Lobachevsky''' (1792-1856) was a Russian mathematician.

He developed [[non-Euclidean geometry]] independently of his rival the Hungarian mathematician Janos Bolyai, who developed the same concept at the same time. Non-Euclidean geometry is a system of geometry that rejects traditional Euclidean geometry's fifth postulate that parallel lines can never intersect. He also invented a method for finding the approximations of the roots of algebraic equations.

He is also the subject of a rather amusing song by the comedic musician, [[Tom Lehrer]].

[[Category: Mathematicians|Lobachevsky, Nikolai I]]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-17T04:34:11Z

Jtl:

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
#{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

#* 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
#* 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
#{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
#*This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
#{{user|Save Our Values}}
#The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
#{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
#{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
#{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
#*I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#*Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
#[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
#*18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
#{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
#{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
#{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
#{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
#{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Aschlafly}} Complaint removed by {{user|TK}}. No action taken --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Substantive due process

2007-04-16T05:48:37Z

Jtl: posting for AmesG; he was working on this when he got banned.

'''Substantive due process''' is the idea that the due process clause of
the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] regulates not only the procedures due a
citizen, before revoking a right, but also what rights may be revoked at
all. It has become a legal theory tied uniquely in the area of
[[fundamental rights]] jurisprudence - or, the protection of certain
inalienable, yet undefined constitutional rights. [[Antonin Scalia]]
sharply dissents from almost all cases upholding substantive due
process, believing that there are no fundamental rights if they are not
defined by the constitution, or discoverable from American history.

== Lochner Era, and Before ==
Ironically, given that substantive due process would later become a tool
of liberal jurists, the doctrine began in conservative, and extremely
regressive, decisions. The justly reviled decision ''Scott v. Sanford''
was the first to suggest that the Constitution protects certain rights
(free use of "property," in this case) from intrusion by the government,
even if constitutional safeguards had led to a procedurally "correct"
taking.<ref>I'll do the cites later</ref> Although ''Dred Scott'' was
thankfully overturned by the [[Reconstruction]] Amendments, the seeds of
substantive due process were sown in the constitutional landscape.

The doctrine was later, famously, picked up by the Court in ''Lochner'',
a decision which held that federal minimum wage laws intruded too far
into the "fundamental right" for an employee and an employer to freely
contract. This fundamental right could not be abridged even by fair
legislative processes. This line of jurisprudence - which came to be
known as "economic" substantive due process - came to an abrupt end in
the wake of the [[Great Depression]], which forced a nationwide crisis
of conscience in the doctrines of full and free [[laissez-faire]], the
philosophical underpinnings of ''Lochner''.<ref>See generally Casey v.
Planned Parenthood</ref> It was fully overturned in ''West Coast
Hotel''.<ref>cites later</ref>

== Griswold Era ==

== The Roe Controversy, and its Progeny ==

== References ==

Oklahoma City Bombing

2007-04-16T04:28:36Z

Jtl: a start; there's so much more to say

On the morning of April 19, 1995, the [[Arthur P. Murrah Federal Building]] in [[Oklahoma City]] was bombed. By official figures, 168 people died<ref>There's an open question about a possible 169th victim. See ''Others Unknown''.</ref>Until the [[September 11th attacks]] in 2001, this was the deadlist terrorist incident in the [[United States]]. [[Timothy McVeigh]] and [[Terry Nichols]] were convicted for their parts in the bombing, and [[Michael Fortier]] pled guilty after cooperating with the prosecution.

== The Bombing itself ==
On the days leading up to April 19th, McVeigh and Nichols filled a rented Ryder truck with approximately 5000 pounds of a fuel oil and fertilizer mixture. On the morning of April 19th, Timothy McVeigh drove the truck into downtown Oklahoma City, parking it directly in front of the Murrah Federal Building. At 9:02 am, the bomb detonated, collapsing the front facade of the federal building and severly damaging several surrounding buildings. The explosion could be heard and felt several miles away.

As emergency teams responded, it was not immediately clear whether the explosion was accidental or deliberate. As the day went on, there was conflicting evidence pointing at both domestic and international terrorism. On one hand, it was the anniversary of the burning of the [[Branch Davidian]] compound in [[Waco, Texas]] as well as the scheduled execution date for a convicted [[White Separatist]]. On the other hand, the first [[be on the lookout]] announcement was for a brown pickup truck driven by an Arab-looking male.

As the day progressed, the brown pickup truck was apparently found and cleared, and an additional set of sketches were released, of Johns Doe #1 and #2. These sketches were apparently based on witness reports from the Ryder shop where the truck was rented; the truck had been identified by its [[VIN]] found on an axle.

== Arrests ==
Ninety minutes after the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was pulled over by an [[Oklahoma Highway Patrol]] officer for driving a car without a license plate. During the stop, a weapon was discovered, and McVeigh was booked into jail on a weapons charge. Before he was released, he was identified as John Doe #1 in the sketches and was taken into federal custody. Terry Nichols, a known friend of McVeigh's, turned himself in soon afterwards.

== Charges, Trials, Convictions, and Punishment ==
McVeigh was charged in Federal court with 8 counts of murder of federal officers, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, and destroying government property via explosive<ref>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=151372</ref>. To avoid a contaminated jury pool, the trial was held in Denver. On June 3, 1997, McVeigh was convicted of all charges.<ref>http://www.rickross.com/reference/mcveigh/mcveigh14.html</ref> He was sentenced to death and the sentence was carried out on June 11, 2001<ref>http://www.newsok.com/article/701218/</ref>.

Terry Nichols was convicted of Federal charges of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction and 8 counts of involuntary manslaughter of federal officers. He was sentended to life without the possibility of patrol. In 2004, he was found guilty on state charges of 161 counts of first degree murder, but the jury deadlocked on sentencing. The judge imposed 161 a sentence of 161 consecutive terms of life without the possibility of patrol.

Michal Fortier testified against McVeigh in exchange for a light charge and sentence; he pled guilty to a single charge of failing to warn authorities about the attack and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined $200,000. In January 2006 he was released into the Witness Protection program.
Others Unknown: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing Conspiracy by Stephen Jones and Peter Israel

John Doe 2 has never been officiailly identified; the current FBI theory appears to be that he was an unrelated person who happened to be at the Ryder office about the same time McVeigh was.

== Memorial ==
The site of the Murrah building was converted into a memorial for those who had died. Its most striking feature is 168 chairs, one for each of the deceased.

== Sources and additional reading ==

[http://www.newsok.com/bombing/intro/ The Daily Oklahoman's archive of their coverage]
[http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=151372 The decision in McVeigh's appeal]
[http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/ The memorial]