Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2009-08-21T23:05:34Z

Mschel: /* Wikipedia's Money Making Schemes */ ???

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak
:Freedom! Freedom! --[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::You mean the ones that exhibit ''truthiness''? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:40, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Anti-intellectual names"? ==

What the heck? [[User:The Ostrich|The Ostrich]] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Do you attend school or go to your place of employment and insist on being called "The Ostrich"? No, because you would never be taken seriously.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**Online, pseudonymity is key for many people. What can they do otherwise for a unique identifier? Are you suggesting that a substantial privacy risk should be taken? I don't mind using my name, people think I'm joking, but what should people seeking a unique, memorable, and private identity name themselves online? your two-letter combination can't serve the Internet's millions - we'd run out after 262. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 00:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: Would you give someone your resume if it was printed in unreadable non-standard font that also substituted letters from non-english alphabets for the the standard ones? How is that different, .....--? Oh, you think it's cute so IT IS different. [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 07:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you think no one takes R.USirius (our however it is spelled) seriously? [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 08:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I would like to point out that Nearly Headless Nick is actually from the ''Harry Potter'' novels written by author J.K. Rowling. I think that is actually a very clever pseudonym and is intellectually worthy.

:Do you think that Pokemon is also "intellectually worthy"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Yes it is "intellectually worthy". I would not see it as something that an adult should reference when creating a username though. I think that a username should have some meaning that most people could easily identify.

== Drive to improve this page - your help is desired ==

I am reviewing this section both for edits, clarification, and for possible new entries to the list. Improvements, suggestions, or constructive criticism are welcome. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, ==

#Number 1 is either obviously wrong or critically misleading: the GDFL is specifically designed to allow users to retain ownership of their contributions while allowing free redistribution. You do not lose any rights whatsoever to what you contribute when you contribute under a GDFL license, since you still own the original version. Your only restriction is once another person edits an article - then, ''the article'' is no longer yours, but your original content still belongs to you. Further, it allows you to prevent mirrors from claiming that they are the creators of your content - you can file a DMCA takedown notice based on your copyright, whereas public domain content is, well, public domain.
#While I remain puzzled as to what is meant by "entries and discussions which are anti-intellectual in nature" (I see no "nerds, you suck" pages on Wikipedia, and the assertion itself seems unfounded (examples, please?)), Wikipedia has merely chosen to separate its lectures, guides, et cetera into separate projects (Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks) to concentrate on a core goal of creating an encyclopedia. Number 2 thus seems grossly misleading - it is not that Wikipedia is lacking, it is that Conservapedia's content is jumbled together (which may or may not be a good thing :) ).
#While Jimbo Wales did co-found Wikia, it is noted repeatedly as being otherwise unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Further, what search engine is associated with Wikipedia?!? Number 3 seems almost ridiculously unhinged.
#
#Gossip isn't exactly allowed on Wikipedia either. I hear they have a really strict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons policy about unreferenced material on living people]. Perhaps number 5 could use a fact-checking tune-up?
#
#
#Neutral to the facts? Conservapedia freely admits being highly pro-Christian, pro-Conservative, and pro-US. The last time I heard that called neutral... there wasn't a last time. Further, what's wrong with using the word "militant"? They mean virtually the same thing, and "militant" isn't politically charged, as "terrorist" is. Number 8 seems to be missing the point: what's wrong with trying to be neutral? Besides, organizations widely recognized as being terrorist in nature are usually labelled as such regardless.
#It's a wiki: anyone can change anything. If your content is supported by consensus, backed up by references, and bolstered by not presenting a lopsided view of the situation in question, it's unlikely that any user, even a sysop, could get away with censoring content. just as I assume is the case on Conservapedia. Got a case in point? I'd like to hear about it. Number 9. Turn me on, dead man.
#Excluding original research makes any reference more reliable. While Conservapedia may think that this "promotes a more intellectual atmosphere", any trained scientist will know that a single experiment, original research, is in and of itself unreliable. Until results are confirmed by multiple parties, which is unlikely to happen, the information obtained should not be trusted. Number 10 marks double digits of shame.
#Do you have a case in point? I recall seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Wikipedia's talk page guidelines], and it seems to me that users have a pretty wide latitude on their own user pages, as long as they aren't disrupting everyone else (in which case, as a misbehaving child might, it is obvious for them to lose some privileges).
#
#Perhaps Wikipedia has exacting rules, but it has been my experience that users are blocked because they make an edit which annoys a sysop on Conservapedia, for example [[User:NeutralParty]] who was blocked for asking about a series of indefinite IP range blocks. Wikipedia's rules would seem preferable to the apparant mob here. I was once blocked for an inappropriate username, with the summary "choose a different username" while having my IP blocked from creating accounts. If I am blocked for posting this, you merely prove my point - Conservapedia needs better blocking rules. Oh well.
#But you have no system for recognizing which people are experts, so your policy is just as bad - you simply treat all new users as... new users - which doesn't seem to be any different from Wikipedia. Unless, again, you can think of a case in point?
#Case in point? Someone being blocked for blog posts obviously was causing a real problem to be blocked. Your statement lacks both context and clarity for the instance.
#And what is your alternative to pseudonymity? Users who have inappropriate usernames are immediately and indefinitely blocked with invitation to choose a better name immediately. Further, I fail to see how usernames are inherently "anti-intellectual" - it's the contributions that matter, not the name.

::I have a bit of a problem with these "differences", and I have outlined my problems with them above. I don't mean to be an annoyance, but were someone to point out the holes in these differences, it might look like you were arbitrarily smearing Wikipedia. Which you aren't, right? I'd like to see some improvement here. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:53, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I read as far as your implication that Wikipedia does not have gossip. Surely you're joking. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. Or perhaps you don't think the National Enquirer has gossip either????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face. Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does. This is not vandalism. Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication??? To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia. I'll let you find the gossip. There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism. Conservapedia has a rule against gossip. Wikipedia does not. More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters. Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project. It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine. It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this. Perhaps you're one of them. How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are still making the same mistake as these guys from the press who have no idea what they are talking about. As one of the three admins on Wikia Search, if something like that was going on I think I would know about it. As for working for Microsoft, I object, I do not have one single piece of Microsoft software on my computer, and I have been using Linux for years. :D [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I'm glad you fixed your spelling of "ridiculous". Now perhaps you can tell us how many millions the for-profit Wikia search engine has raised from investors, which Wikipedia admins control and benefit from that for-profit endeavor, and how Wikipedia is and will be being manipulated to give it an advantage. You tell us the details if you know so much. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::O my! Someone has been reading too much CNN. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Aschafly, Wikipedia ''does'' have rules against gossip. Perhaps one of the sentences from one of the core policies (Verifiability) will make this clear: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, you attempt to discount my argument as absurd by calling me a liberal. This would only be an effective retort were I a liberal. I'm afraid that I only skimmed through the article on Bertrand Russell, but I don't see the gossip right away. Could you point me to a specific section or sections? Or has any gossip been appropriately removed? Further, I'm afraid it is not obvious that Wikipedia's "gossip" is the primary attraction to visitors. Also, would you mind reading some of the other complaints? Specifically, number 1 is, IMHO, the worst problem of the lot.
:And regarding Wikipedia admins, they aren't paid. The only connections that Wikia has to Wikipedia are Jimbo Wales and the occasional donation from Wikia, which help keep Wikipedia running - if Wikipedia itself were for-profit, it might have better servers rather than the lag-prone arrays currently responding to the flood of traffic. Further, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of Wikipedia end-users are not even aware of the Wikia Search page, or of any but the most popular Wikia-based sites. Even further than that, I mean no offense, but your last comment sounds somewhat like something from your Enquirer. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 12:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: INTregued, you're clueless. Look up gossip in the dictionary and read a copy of the National Enquirer so that you can learn what "gossip" is. Then reread Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia and see the gossip. Read [[Bias in Wikipedia]] for other examples. Wikipedia is filled with gossip, perhaps even more than the National Enquirer is. I'm not going to spend my afternoon teaching you what everyone else knows: the meaning of the term "gossip". I'm not going to respond to you further about this until you admit the obvious, and admit that Wikipedia does not prohibit or even discourage gossip. It welcomes it.

: Your second point also misses the obvious, and I'm not going to dwell on that with you either. Wikipedia generates traffic on the backs of volunteers, and a privileged few have raised millions in a for-profit venture to exploit that traffic. In the terminology of another silly Wikipedia entry, duh.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: In the various talk pages about atheism there is a question about who the burden of proof is upon for making a claim. In this case, I believe the burden is upon you. You have stated that there is gossip in the Bertrand Russell page on Wikipedia and yet you leave the evidence as left up to the reader who doesn't necessarily agree with you? Could you please point to specific items to show to others where that gossip is to prove your point? Making vague claims and then leaving it up to the other side to prove or disprove your claims will not win any points in a debate team. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Is the point of this site to be a better alternative to Wikipedia, or to bash it? When I joined I I was under the former impression, I am now leaning towards the latter. For example, if you go to the article about Wikipedia, you don't learn that it is a wiki, all you see is that it's an online encyclopedia, and section after section of mud-slinging. Would someone please explain this to me? [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 13:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

*Mschel, you are yet another common troll. You cannot even post here with openly and with integrity without using proxies to disguise yourself. More Liberal [[deceit]]. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Monitor blogs ==

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:How would you react if a group of people were getting together to shut Conservapedia down? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know about FC16, but I wouldn't give a rat's behind for two reasons: (1) it wouldn't be the least bit surprising and (2) it wouldn't have a chance of succeeding. Wikipedia and many of its users are hyper-sensitive to criticism and certain editors make sure any off-WP criticism is quickly and permanently attached to the editors who criticize. This is done to try to smear and discredit said editors. I do not see that happening here (mainly because the critics discredit themselves with their edits). CP does not monitor off-site comments that I've seen. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It wasn't criticism, it was an outright attack. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 21:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia million dollar investments==
What's the source of the idea that Wikipedia attracts million dollar investments? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: none -- a lot of the stuff on this encyclopedia are unsourced claims made to attack wikipedia

:: Not investments in the traditional sense, because Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is a not-for-profit. The Foundation receives donations and grants. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Foundation Sloan Foundation] in March 2008 granted $1 million to WMF for the current financial year and pledged a further $2m over the following two years.

:: But the text on this page reads:
::: ''Wikipedia, while relying on volunteers, uses its traffic to attract million-dollar investments in money-making projects, such as building a search engine.''

:: This is confusing the Wikimedia Foundation, set up by Jimmy Wales,with Wikia, a for-profit set up by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley and incorporated in Delaware. It's a wiki-farm, mainly funded by advertising but I understand that it has also received capital from other companies for some of its project. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Original research==
Does Conservapedia really allow original research? That's very dangerous. Suppose I was to write (taking an untrue and entirely made up example) "I met Ann Coulter in a restaurant, she was blind drunk and told me she was addicted to cocaine but had managed to keep it from the media". Am I allowed to add that to the article about her? It's based on personal experience, so by the rules of Conservapedia is should be allowed. Is it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Well technically a no originally research rule excludes your own videotapes. So you could interview Ann Coulter, videotape it yourself, and then there is proof and it is also original research. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 16:25, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Let me be less controversial. There is a persistent editor on Wikipedia who has been asserting that the true name of [[Canada]] is ''Dominion of Canada''. He claims to have discovered this by examining the founding document of the country. Is he allowed to write about his discoveries on Conservapedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Opinion==
"Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion". Any actual examples of this? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Several, many of which are listed on the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page. One recent example which I exposed after it had been presented as fact for 3 years on WP was a phony quote attributed to Phillip Johnson. The quote was actually one person's biased paraphrase (i.e. his opinion) of what Johnson said. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:One case in an entire encyclopedia? I bet there are more errors in Conservapedia. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==American==
I was just talking to another editor who says that Conservapedia is explicitly written from an American point of view (meaning United States). Is that the case? If so then I think it would be good to say so on this page. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:It is in some cases. Many of the political articles about liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism are often overly American-focused, but I wouldn't say there's a large American POV present in Wikipedia as a whole mainly because the British, Canadian, Australian, etc. editors try to fix it. If only they were able to apply such fair-mindedness to the rest of their site... --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:It might be good to point out the silliness and confusion that can be and is caused by WP trying to be world-minded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for those comments. However I'm still not clear whether Conservapedia is ''intended'' to be American biased. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Have a look at Conservapedia's logo for a second. Then you will see whether Conservapedia is written from an American perspective or not.

== gossip ==

I must point out that in the gossip section, the word 'real' used in that context could be interpreted as meaning that Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia. Also, I believe the protection template on the beginning of this talk page is inaccurate, as I was just able to post this message.

==Item 1==
Item one currently reads as follows:
: ''We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.''

This is confusing rights to one's own material with rights to the material of others.

You still retain complete rights to use your own material as you see fit. If someone edits it they can grant you whatever rights to their material they want.

What Wikipedia does, however, is ensure that ''anyone'' can use the combined work without further negotiation, subject to the GFDL which simply ensures that your contribution is acknowledged (the burden consists, in total, of a requirement to display that acknowledgement alongside the copied or derived material). If they don't want to be "burdened" by the GFDL they can contact you and the other authors and ask for whatever permissions they want. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 14:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Wikipedia's Money Making Schemes==
We should investigate this and try to overturn the Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Charitable Organization classification Wikipedia has falsely secured. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)
:What money making schemes? Accepting grants and donations? Numerous, if not most, respected non-profits do this. I honestly don't see how they are doing anything that could violate their non-profit classification. ----[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 19:05, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Darwinist

2007-11-09T02:03:09Z

Mschel: Fixing double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Evolutionism]]

Satanist

2007-11-09T02:03:07Z

Mschel: Fixing double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Theistic Satanism]]

Seigenthaler

2007-10-30T19:51:44Z

Mschel: Fixing double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[John Seigenthaler, Sr.]]

John Lawrence Seigenthaler

2007-10-30T19:51:43Z

Mschel: Fixing double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[John Seigenthaler, Sr.]]

Christian apologetics

2007-10-26T17:46:18Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Televangelist (talk) identified as vandalism, to last version by DanH

{{Christianity}}
'''Christian Apologetics''' is the defense of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith through rational arguments. The term comes from the [[Greek]] word ''apologia'', which means "defense". There are a number of subfields within apologetics. Some apologists specialize in internal biblical consistency (such as JP Holding, owner of tektonics.org), others in scientific defenses of the Bible, and still others in historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity (such as [[Gary Habermas]] or [[Lee Strobel]]). Christian apologist [[JP Holding]] has recommended that prospective apologists choose one area of focus rather than trying to be a "jack of all trades". <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sowant.html</ref> Some feel that faith alone should need no justification, however, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means, especially as many people will not accept Christianity without a "rational" reason to do so.
==History of Christian Apologetics==
Christian apologetics has existed as long as Christianity itself. [[Jesus]] himself spent time in the temples and synagogues, debating and explaining the meaning of the scriptures. The [[Saint Peter|Apostle Peter]] exhortd early Christians to apologetics, writing,
:"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16.

The Apostle Paul also spent time in [[Athens]], debating [[Stoicism|Stoic]] and [[Epicurianism|Epicurian]] philosophers. Acts 17:16.

Great theologians such as [[Origen]], [[Athanasius]], [[Irenaeus]], [[Martyr]], [[Augustine]], and [[Acquinas]] continued the tradition of apologetics on a dramatic scale. At the same time, apologetics was practiced by countless individual Christians, explaining and defending their beliefs.

===Purposes===
Apologetics has generally been used for two purposes: Efforts to ''persuade'' others of the truth of Christianity, and efforts to ''defend'' the reasonableness of one's own beliefs, while not seeking to convince others of their truth.

==Types of Christian Apologetics==

===Evidentialist apologetics===

Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through [[evidence]]. This can take the form of:
* Arguments based on the historical accounts of the Bible;
* Defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible;
* [[Christian Legal Apologetics]]
* [[Biblical Archaeology]], seeking to show that the Bible is consistent with the physical evidence;
* [[Creationism]], seeking to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are the most reasonable explanation for life as we know it.

===Philosophical apologetics===
Philosophical apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through philosophical argument: primarily [[arguments for the existence of God]]. This can take the form of:
* [[Teleological argument]]: When you find a watch in the sand, you infer that it is designed, even if you do not see the designer, because it is complex, has a definite purpose, and could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent causes. Therefore, when we observe a complex, purposeful universe which could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent cause, it is reasonable to infer the existence of a designer, aka God.
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in the universe is caused by something. It is impossible that everything should have a cause, going back to eternity. Therefore, there must be a [[First Cause]], which itself is not caused, and that First Cause must be capable of causing the universe, aka God.
In the 20th century, this argument has been strongly supported by [[science]], with the discovery that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the 1920s, it had been widely believed that the universe's existence had been eternal. <ref>http://www.harvardhouse.com/Science-Religion.htm</ref> This verifies the very first three words of the [[Bible]]: "In the beginning".
* [[Ontological argument]]: God is the being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore if you conceive God as not existing, you are not conceiving the being than which no greater can be conceived, and are therefore not conceiving God. Therefore it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. Therefore God exists.
* [[Argument from morality]]: All humans are born with a natural, moral code. A moral code implies a moral code giver, aka God.

===Presuppositional apologetics===
Presuppositional apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief by showing that belief in Christian precepts is necessary to make sense of the human experience as a whole.

== Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost Christian apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus. <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf </ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher Antony Flew regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Michael Horner]]. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref>

Legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Lord Darling]], [[John Singleton Copley]], [[Hugo Grotius]], [[Lord Caldecote]], [[J. N. D. Anderson]], [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref>

== Christian Apologetic Ministries ==
There are a number of [[internet]] based Christian apologetic Ministries or Christian apologetics ministries which have a internet presence. Some of the more notable Christian apologetic ministries are: [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]], [[Tekton Apologetics Ministries]], [[LeadershipU]], [[Probe Ministries]], [[Christian Answers Network]], and [[A Christian Thinktank]].

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

== External Links ==

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com AllAboutGOD.com]
*[http://www.carm.org Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]
*[http://www.apologetics.com Apologetics.com]
*[http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/resource.html Apologetics Information Ministry]
*[http://www.tektonics.org/classics/classics.html Classic Works of Apologetics]
*[http://hisdefense.org/Links/Authors/tabid/297/Default.aspx Academy of Christian Apologetics]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/menus/theology.html Leadership U]
*[http://www.lifeway.com/apologetics LifeWay Apologetics]
*[http://www.probe.org/ Probe Ministries -Christian Apologetics]
*[http://www.rzim.org/ Ravi Zacharias, modern apologist]
*[http://www.ses.edu/journal/ Christian Apologetic Journal]
*[http://www.str.org/ Stand to Reason]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
*[http://www.christian-thinktank.com Christian Thinktank]
*[http://www.worldview.org Worldview Academy]
*[http://www.arcapologetics.org/ Apologetics Resource Center]

[[Category: Christianity]]
[[Category: Christian Apologetics]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-10-26T17:42:50Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Televangelist (talk) identified as vandalism, to last version by HelpJazz

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts and the proven health risks of gay sex.

It seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his years 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had recieved children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law barring "orientation discrimination" prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agencies Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].{{fact}}

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children through the use of ''tolerance'' or ''diversity'' programs in schools which encourage acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%). The poll did not ask directly about current military policy.

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s or partnerships. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use deceit, notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Godless: The Church of Liberalism

2007-10-25T02:33:33Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Libcrusader (talk) identified as vandalism, to last version by Karajou

[[Image:Imagef90e812f-6091-4de8-b0ae-ccff5df1d9ce.jpg|right|thumb]]
[[Ann Coulter]]'s 2006 book ''Godless'' argues that to its adherents, liberalism holds every single characteristic of a religion. <ref>Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2006) ISBN 1-4000-5420-6<blockquote>Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'</blockquote> </ref>

She maintains that,
*Liberalism has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, and its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)
*Liberals deny that liberalism is a religion – otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. To their thinking, the separation of church and state means separation of your traditional churches from the state, but total the unity between their church and the state. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22829]
* The ACLU promotes evolutionism. "The ACLU sued a school district in Cobb County Georgia, merely for putting stickers in biology textbooks that urged students to study evolution 'with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.' <ref>Ariel Hart, "Stickers Put in Evolution Text Are the Subject of a Federal Trial," New York Times, November 9, 2004</ref> According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the 'separation of church and state,' which appears in the Constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses." <ref>Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2006)</ref>

The popular novelist [[Michael Crichton]] makes much the same point as Coulter:
*"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western world is environmentalism. [[Environmentalism]] seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists." [http://www.cdfe.org/religion.htm]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.godlessthechurchofliberalism.com/ Godless: The Church of Liberalism]
[[category:book]]
*[http://www.epinions.com/content_242647600772 Review - Godless: The Church of Liberalism]

Shutter speed

2007-10-22T15:44:35Z

Mschel: Added an image.

[[Image:LowShutter.jpg|thumb|150px|right|One of the main disadvantages of a low shutter speed is that it can result in a blurry image]]
'''Shutter speed''' is the amount of time a cameras shutter is held open. The normal reason for adjusting shutter speed is to compensate for various levels of [[light]]. Generally it is preferable to have a higher shutter speed, but in lower levels of light, it is not always possible.

[[Category:Photography]]

User talk:Mactographer

2007-10-22T00:05:36Z

Mschel: Welcome!

{{welcome}} --[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 20:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Hmwith

2007-10-21T21:42:05Z

Mschel: Indented my comment.

==Hello==
Hello Hayley! --[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 20:11, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
::Well, hi. I didn't know you edited here. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:16, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep... :) --[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 08:31, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==Welcome==
{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 09:17, 19 October 2007 (EDT)}}
::Thanks for the welcome template, TK. I actually had already checked out most of those links before editing, because I know that it is strict here. It's nice to have to links to them all in one place, though. Again, thank you, and have a great day. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 15:49, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Hmwith

2007-10-18T00:11:19Z

Mschel: Howdy!

Hello Hayley! --[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 20:11, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Whips

2007-10-17T14:15:08Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by Tash

'''Whips''' are assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader.
[[Category:Government]]

Tenancy in common

2007-10-17T14:13:55Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by DrSandstone

'''Tenancy in common''' is a form of [[property]] ownership in which several persons acquire property together and shares in its use or rents. Each can sell or convey his interest separately from the other owners. Each has a right to use the entire property. There is no right of survivorship, i.e., other tenants do not automatically obtain their co-tenant's interest when he passes away.

Other forms of property ownership are [[joint tenancy]] and [[tenancy by the entirety]].

[[Category:Legal terms]]

Goth (subculture)

2007-10-17T14:13:17Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by Hojimachong

'''Goth''' is a term often given to a style of music, a type of dress, and a subculture; all of which were originally derived from bands such as Siouxsie & The Banshees in the 1980's. Goth fashion typically consists of a conspicuous affection for black clothing, black hair dye, pale skin, and striking application of cosmetics, though this general fashion style is not exclusive to goths nor necessarily used by all goths. It is often labeled as [[Satan]]ic or anti-[[Christian]] in nature, although a large Christian Goth community exists, and Goths are not necessarily anti-Christian.

[[Category:Culture]]

Theorem

2007-10-17T14:13:14Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by Jaques

{{stub}}

A '''theorem''' is a statement that can be proved by deductive reasoning from a collection of assumptions, called axioms. Euclid is often credited as the first person to use the axiomatic approch to derive mathematical theorems.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Ségolène Royal

2007-10-17T14:12:06Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by AmeriCan

[[Image:Segolene royal.jpg|thumb|Ségolène Royal]]

'''Marie-Ségolène Royal''' (born 22 September 1953 in Dakar, [[Senegal]]) was the [[Socialist]] candidate for the [[2007 French presidential elections|2007 French presidential election]]. On May 6, 2007 [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] won the French presidential election. The socialist Ségolène Royal conceded defeat, by a 53-47% margin.

Her father Jacques Royal, is a Catholic, [[conservative]] [[France|French]] army colonel. Royal attended the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration. She has also a Degree in Economics, Graduate of the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris. At the Ecole Nationale she met François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist Party and father of her four children. Both collaborated with the staff of Socialist President François Mitterrand.

She is a National Assembly member and the President of the Poitou-Charentes region. On March 27, 2000, She was appointed as Minister at the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity, with delegated responsibility for Childhood and the Family.

== Writings ==

*''Le printemps des grands-parents'', Editions Robert Laffont
*''Le ras-le-bol des bébés zappeurs'', Editions Robert Laffont
*''Pays, paysans, paysage'', Editions Robert Laffont
*''La vérité d'une femme'', Stock. (A Lady's Truth)

==Policies==

Segolene Royal has promised to implement leftist economic policies that will "frighten the capitalists." She also calls for European opposition to "the American hyperpower." <ref>http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070424-102752-8335r.htm</ref>

She is known for her admiration for some "[[Third Way]]" policies (and has been compared to [[Tony Blair]] in this respect), for her insistence on the importance of the "welfare state" and for her support of participatory democracy and devolution.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Royal, Ségolène}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:French people]]
[[Category:Women]]

Urban heat island

2007-10-17T14:12:00Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by Aziraphale

The '''Urban Heat Island Effect''' is a common observance around metropolises or cities. Essentially, because urban areas both generate and trap heat, a bubble or "urban heat island" (UHI) often forms around the city, slightly altering local meteorological observations as compared to the surrounding areas. [http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd26apr99_1.htm] Several factors contribute to the the Urban Heat Island Effect, such as increased number of roads (asphalt can absorb and radiate heat), increased traffic, and increased industrial activity.

One example of an occurrence of the Urban Heat Island Effect would be the metropolis of Atlanta, Georgia.<ref>It has been observed that often, with conditions held equal across the mesoscale, Atlanta will observe slightly higher temperatures (on an average of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit) than areas further away from the center of the metropolis. [http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd26apr99_1.htm Atlanta's Urban Heat Alters Weather Patterns], NASA </ref>

==Urban sprawl==

Heat islands are created through the process of urbanization. As a city grows, trees are cut down to make room for commercial development, roads, and suburban growth. Forest growth normally reduces the amount of heat and smog generated by populated areas. The materials used to build over these forests compound the urban overheating problem. Asphalt roads, tar roofs, and other dark, heat-absorbing materials hold in heat long after the sun sets, keeping the cities hotter for longer periods of time.

Urban sprawl in conjunction with the Urban Heat Island Effect can account for the difficulties that some meteorologists have with predicting extreme short term weather events. An example of such complications is during Winter Storm events in places such as the Ohio Valley. The metropolis of Louisville, Kentucky is a sprawling urban/suburban area, while much of the surrounding area is dramatically rural in comparison. As such, it is not uncommon for Winter Storms to affect the immediate Louisville vicinity much more severely than what is actually observed within the Louisville city limits. Differences in snow totals are usually contributed to the envelope of warm air that surrounds the city, which causes much precipitation to melt into sleet or rain before it reaches the ground, reducing snowfall amounts.

==Implications for the global warming theory==

Warwick Hughes argues that:
:... Atlanta, Macon and Athens were unsuitable stations to measure long-term climate variations. Using these three stations generates a spurious warming trend in a region where there is clear evidence of long-term cooling. [http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/atlanta2.htm]

Citing popular literature, such as Hughes' blog, some skeptics of Global Warming attempt to attribute the global warming trend to the Urban Heat Island effect. However, there has yet to be an entry to a peer-reviewed journal that scientifically extrapolates this premise. In fact, the converse has been argued in paper submitted to credible journals such as Nature.<ref>David E. Parker, a meteorologist with the British government, has concluded that Urban Heat Island effects are most dramatic at night, but their overall effect on global climate patterns is neglible [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a.html Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban], Met Office </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/atlanta2.htm Reviews of station by station claimed IPCC global warming, urban heat island effects in global warming data]
*Parker, David E., David M. Sexton, and Chris K. Folland. Great Britain. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Met Office. [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_46.pdf Natural and Human Influences on Central England Temperature]. January 2004.

[[category:meteorology]]

Arthur Eddington

2007-10-17T14:11:49Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by RSchlafly

[[Image:Eddington 2.jpg|right|thumb]]
Brit Sir '''Arthur Eddington''' was a top English astronomer best known for venturing out on a boat off Africa in 1919 to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total [[eclipse]]. The [[theory of relativity|theory of general relativity]] of [[Albert Einstein]] predicts twice the bending of light around massive objects compared to [[Isaac Newton|Newton]]'s theory, and an eclipse is required to darken the sun so that the starlight may be seen in proximity to the sun.

Eddington liked publicity and probably dreamed of winning a [[Nobel Prize]], and upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. That was good enough for reporters and historians, but the Nobel committee was not impressed and declined to give him an award. Recent analysis of Eddington’s work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data was inconclusive about the theory of relativity.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102462</ref>

Eddington next promoted the theory of relativity to the English-speaking world in his ''Mathematical Theory of Relativity'' (1923). As the title suggests, this theory was more a mathematical vision of how the universe should be, rather than what it actually was. When a reporter asked Eddington whether only three people even understood the theory, Eddington supposedly retorted, "Who's the third?"

But Eddington did not fare well after that. He strongly opposed a theory about massive [[star]]s known as [[white dwarf|white dwarves]] put forth by Indian physicist [[Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar]], but Eddington was proven wrong and Chandrasekhar later won a Nobel Prize for his work. Eddington finally lost all credibility when he first insisted that a physical constant (the fine structure constant) measured to be close to 1/136 must precisely equal 1/136 to make the math easier, but when later measurements suggested a value closer to 1/137 Eddington insisted that it must precisely equal to 1/137 instead. He was wrong both times. When [[World War II]] came to England, Eddington was a [[conscientious objector]].

<references />
[[Category:Astronomers|Eddington, Arthur]]

Hydronium

2007-10-17T14:11:49Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by Aschlafly

'''Hydronium''' is a [[polyatomic ion]] with [[chemical formula]] H3O+. It is often simplified to H+ in writing chemical reactions.

Hydronium is present in all aqueous [[solution]]s, as the [[acid]]ic counterpart to the [[alkaline]] [[hydroxide]] (OH-). A hydronium ion will combine with a hydroxide ion to create two [[water]] (H2O) [[molecule]]s. An imbalance will shift the [[pH]] down if hydronium is more dominant.

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Promissory note

2007-10-17T14:11:47Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by TraJSmith

A '''promissory note''' is a written promise by someone to pay a specific amount of [[money]] by a certain date. It is the formal name for an "I.O.U."

For example, a bank will require a promissory note in exchange for loaning someone money, and the promissory note will specify how that money must be repaid.

Such terms of repayment will inlcude interest rate, frequency of payments, any penalties regarding late or early payments, and how the principle of the loan is amortized.

[[category:accounting]]

Ancient Terms K

2007-10-17T14:11:47Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Wakawaka (talk) to last version by Albertus

{{Ancient Index}}

[[Karma]]

[[Kassites]]

[[Khufu]]

[[Khyber Pass]]

[[Kingdom of Kush|Kush]]

[[Kazahkstan]]

User talk:TeteLLM

2007-10-16T20:48:05Z

Mschel: /* Your question */ Hehe.

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Tash|Tash]] 16:40, 24 September 2007 (EDT)}}

== Your question ==
First of all, please do not post questions in the main-space. Secondly, if you wish to send me an email, go ahead. Tell me what happened, and I can probably tell you how to fix whatever the problem is. --[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 15:31, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

*Or not. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:46, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Hehe. :D --[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 16:48, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:TeteLLM

2007-10-16T19:31:35Z

Mschel: Your question

Sex

2007-10-16T02:29:28Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Laelaps (talk) to last version by Joaquín Martínez

'''Gender''' is the attribute of being either [[male]] or [[female]]. Gender differs from sex in that while sex deals with the biological attributes of male and female, gender may be understood more as a cultural concept and a complex set of learned behaviors that is contingent not only on culture, but also on history. Gender roles and expectations are always in flux and vary from one society to another and one time to another. Thus, the qualities and behaviors expected of [[women]] by a particular society at a particular historical time is called [[femininity]]; [[masculinity]] is what is expected of [[men]] in a particular cultural and historical setting.

An organism's sex category reflects its biological reproductive function rather than its sexuality or other behavior. The female sex is defined as the one which produces the larger [[gamete]] (the egg) and which typically bears the offspring. In contrast, the male sex has a smaller gamete (sperm) and rarely bears offspring. In some animals, sex may be assigned to specific structures rather than the entire organism. Earthworms, for example, are normally [[hermaphrodites]].

Alternatively, "gender" may be defined to be the norm of social conduct, based on sex. That is, "sex" defines what is biologically present, whereas "gender" defines what society expects of persons of different sexes. The distinction is important: the law tends to forbid discrimination on the basis of both (effeminate men cannot be fired for not acting according to their "gender"), but matters in terms of more abstracted social and legal arguments.

[[category:biology]]
[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Infidel

2007-10-16T02:16:17Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Laelaps (talk) to last version by Maestro

'''"Infidels"''' (literally "one without faith") is a term used by people of some faiths to refer those who reject the beliefs of that faith. In some religions being an infidel can be dangerous. Muslim extremists who bring about the death of innocent victims often do so after calling them "infidels", the labeling of which justifies their actions in their eyes.{{fact}}

[[Category:Religion]]

{{stub}}

Aperture

2007-10-15T19:38:33Z

Mschel: Category:Photography

[[Image:SmallDOF.jpg|thumb|right|150px|An image taken on f/3.2. Note the small depth of field]]
In [[photography]], the '''aperture''' is the opening in a camera lens that light passes through. The term "f-stop" is generally used to notate the diameter of the aperture. A large aperture, or low f-stop, will allow more light to be exposed to the film or image sensor. Low f-stops will also result in a smaller [[depth of field]].

[[Category:Photography]]

Aperture

2007-10-15T19:38:07Z

Mschel: Spelling.

Aperture

2007-10-15T19:37:50Z

Mschel: Created article.

[[Image:SmallDOF.jpg|thumb|right|150px|An image taken on f/3.2. Note the small depth of feild]]
In [[photography]], the '''aperture''' is the opening in a camera lens that light passes through. The term "f-stop" is generally used to notate the diameter of the aperture. A large aperture, or low f-stop, will allow more light to be exposed to the film or image sensor. Low f-stops will also result in a smaller [[depth of field]].

Muscle

2007-10-15T18:53:11Z

Mschel: Removed Image:Exampe.jpg

A '''muscle''' is made of a bundle of muscle fibers. These fibers can be extremely long, up to about 14 inches in the leg, or very short, fractions of an inch. Within the muscle fiber are thousands of parallel structures called mycofibrils. The mycofibrils contain two types of filaments (actin and mycosin) that cause the contractions of the muscle. These interlocking filaments can shorten by grabbing on to each other and pulling together; this is a muscle contraction.
[[Image:Illu muscle tissues.jpg|right|thumb|300px|3 types of muscle tissues.]]
==Difference in Muscle Cells==
Depending on the type of mycosin in the mycofibril, a muscle can be either fast-twitch or slow-twitch. The slow-twitch or ''type I'' fibers use energy much more efficiently, but cannot contract as quickly. The fast-twitch or ''type II'' fibers use energy less efficiently, but contract up to ten times faster than the type I fibers. Both types of muscle fiber contract with about the same amount of force.

==Variation in Fiber Composition==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Type of Person
! Fast-twitch percent
! Slow-twitch percent
|-
| Olympic Sprinter
| 80%
| 20%
|-
| Couch Potato
| 60%
| 40%
|-
| Weekend Warrior
| 50%
| 50%
|-
| Olympic Marathoner
| 15%
| 85%
|}

== See also ==

*[[Bone]]
*[[Fat]]

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Shutter speed

2007-10-15T18:28:49Z

Mschel: Created page, will make a photo for it soon.

'''Shutter speed''' is the amount of time a cameras shutter is held open. The normal reason for adjusting shutter speed is to compensate for various levels of [[light]]. Generally it is preferable to have a higher shutter speed, but in lower levels of light, it is not always possible.

[[Category:Photography]]

Category:Photography

2007-10-15T16:08:20Z

Mschel: Category:Art

Main [[Photography]] article
[[Category:Art]]

Photography

2007-10-15T16:06:12Z

Mschel: category:photography

[[Image:Photo.jpg|right]]
'''Photography''' (French: photographie, German: die Fotografie, Greek: φωτογράφιση, Spanish: fotografía) the process or [[art]] of producing images on photosensitive surfaces (taking and printing photographs).

==See also==
*[[Art Movements]]
*[[Emulsion]]
*[[Slide]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/ photography] National Geographic.
*[http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=38&pq-locale=en_US Tips & Projects Center] Kodak.

[[category:photography]]
[[Category:Art]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Depth of field

2007-10-15T16:05:49Z

Mschel: category:photography

[[Image:SmallDOF.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A photo with a very small depth of field]]
'''Depth of field''' in [[photography]], is the length of the area in a image that has acceptable focus. Depth of field can be set up to a certain point, by adjusting the cameras aperture. Lower apertures can be used to blur the background of an image, which can emphasize the focus of the photograph.

[[category:photography]]

Macro Photography

2007-10-15T16:05:36Z

Mschel: category:photography

[[Image:Nail.JPG|thumb|right|200px|A macro photograph of a nail]]
'''Macro Photography''' refers to [[photography]] where the photograph produced is life-size or larger. Macro photographs often have a much narrower [[depth of field]], which can be a disadvantage when trying to capture greater areas of detail.

==See also==
*[[Photography]]

[[category:photography]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Talk:Judaism

2007-10-15T02:47:40Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Gregen (talk) to last version by HelpJazz

What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.

I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should be merged with [[Jews]] and [[Jew]].--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism ==

It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.

Since [[Abraham]] is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.

I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy

:: Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au March 31, 2007

:::Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --[[User:M|M]]

But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. [[User:Isiah24]]

I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: myles325@yahoo.com.au

:While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au

:Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
:So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unexpected deletions ==

I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Preposterous examples of stupidity==

That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Should there be something telling how the Jews will be converted to Christianity in the end, according to Revelations. [[User:LilGeorgiaPeach81|Mellie]] 15:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a disgustingly selfish and misguided view. So what if someone doesn't agree with what we think? We should learn to accept other people for who they are.

== some more added ==

I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.

== Jews for Jesus? ==

I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish.
There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--[[User:M|M]] 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Nation'==
*''Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt''
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--[[User:M|M]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestions==
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Menorah==
Why was the menorah replaced witht the Star of David? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== G-d ==

Could someone change the 'G-d' in the last paragraph to 'God'? It is silly to use God's name five times in the page, then wrap it up with a 'G-d'. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 00:23, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Baseball ball

2007-10-15T01:12:34Z

Mschel: Reverted myself per request.

[[Image:Baseball.jpg|left|120px]]
''' Baseball ball ''': The baseball’s core is made of rubber and cork. Yarn is wound around the rubber and cork centre. Then 2 strips of white cowhide are sewn around the ball. Official baseballs must weigh 5 to 5 1/4 ounces and be 9 to 9 1/4 inches around
 
 
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]

== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.

== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]

[[Category:Baseball]]

Baseball ball

2007-10-15T00:59:52Z

Mschel: Lets move the image to the right.

[[Image:Baseball.jpg|left|120px|right]]
''' Baseball ball ''': The baseball’s core is made of rubber and cork. Yarn is wound around the rubber and cork centre. Then 2 strips of white cowhide are sewn around the ball. Official baseballs must weigh 5 to 5 1/4 ounces and be 9 to 9 1/4 inches around
 
 
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]

== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.

== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]

[[Category:Baseball]]

Baseball ball

2007-10-15T00:59:11Z

Mschel: Replacing lower quality image.

User talk:MichaelM

2007-10-15T00:38:16Z

Mschel: Moving comment from userpage.

You've undone several reversions. Your account is on the verge of being blocked. Discuss on the talk page before reinserting a reverted change. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
Moved from userpage by [[User:Mschel|Mschel]]

Heterosexuality

2007-10-07T02:58:45Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Ashleyamber (talk) identified as vandalism, to last version by Learn together

'''Heterosexuality''' is the natural way that human beings and most animals reproduce. It involves union between two members of the opposite gender. Some less complex animals such as worms have both sex organs and can reproduce apart from having a partner.

Heterosexual attraction is natural; that is, men for women, and women for men.

== Biblical Quotations ==

=== [[Old Testament]] ===

:"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

:"And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:7-10)

:"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

:"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)

:"If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

=== [[New Testament]] ===
:"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

:"''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

:"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:8-15)

== References ==
<references />

[[category:biology]]

Depth of field

2007-10-07T02:55:01Z

Mschel: A photo with a very small depth of field

Macro Photography

2007-10-06T22:38:23Z

Mschel: Added link to depth of field. Also fixed wording.

Depth of field

2007-10-06T22:36:50Z

Mschel: Created a small article about a phography related subject. I could use some help with the definition, it is kind of confusing.

'''Depth of field''' in [[photography]], is the length of the area in a image that has acceptable focus. Depth of field can be set up to a certain point, by adjusting the cameras aperture. Lower apertures can be used to blur the background of an image, which can emphasize the focus of the photograph.

Vestigial organ

2007-10-06T02:49:55Z

Mschel: Fixing double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Vestigial Structures]]

Vestigial

2007-10-06T02:49:53Z

Mschel: Fixing double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Vestigial Structures]]

Neolithic Age

2007-10-01T00:24:34Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Djtheblade (talk) to last version by Karajou

The '''Neolithic Age''' was the second part of the [[Stone age]]. The [[Paleolithic Age]] was the first. Farming became popular during the Neolithic Age as opposed to the hunting and gathering which were favored in the Paleolithic age.

[[category:anthropology]]
[[Category:Archaeology]]

Talk:Islam

2007-10-01T00:05:30Z

Mschel: Reverted edits by Djtheblade (talk) to last version by Karajou

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

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

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

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

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

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

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

== There is still misleading information in here ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Spelling==

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

== Islam and Judaism ==

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

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

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

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

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

== Islam and Paganism ==

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

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

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

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

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

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

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

== revelation and transcription ==

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

User talk:Iduan

2007-09-30T23:40:38Z

Mschel: /* User:CO */ Reply.

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*[[/Archive1|(August 10th - )]]
*[[/Archive2|Archive # 2]]
*[[/Archive3|Archive # 3]]

</div>
|}

== User boxes ==

Hey, I have a question...

How do I set up those neat boxes on my userpage? Y'know, the ones that say "This user believes yadda yadda yadda" with a cute symbol set up. If you can show me how, I'd be thankful! [[[[User:Adam|Adam]] 23:50, 5 September 2007 (EDT)]]

== Overnight Edit Warning ==

Sorry, Iduan, but overnight editing is about to turn off. Please come back early tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Contest ==

Iduan, your on [[Team Airborne]]! The contest starts today at noon (which is in about 4 minutes from now on my clock :). Please visit our [[Team Airborne|team page]] and also our [[Conservapedia talk:Team Airborne| talk page]] to figure how to record your score, and talk strategy. Thanks! --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 11:57, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, Iduan! You know have the power to block vandals. This is in recognition of your fine efforts! Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks Aschlafly! I'll do my best to help with keeping vandals out of the project! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== [[User:CO]] ==

I don't think CO was done, he had deleted a section from the talk page, then re-inserted it. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 19:36, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
: I agree. I think you may have misunderstood the message on his userpage. He was sick of Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. --[[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 19:38, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::See my reply on Greg's page--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:38, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::: Ok, great. That had me worried. Stupid server glitch. :D --[[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 19:40, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Iduan

2007-09-30T23:38:11Z

Mschel: /* User:CO */ I think so too.