Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:American Civil War

2007-03-24T00:06:20Z

Niwrad: /* Alternate Names for Civil War */

The main issue may have been states' rights... but specifically it was the states' right to keep slavery. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate Names for Civil War ==

According to a friend of mine in Atlanta, the older generation is still known to refer to it as "The Late Great Unpleasantness" :-D [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 19:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: If you can find a resource supporting that, feel free to add it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's why it's here in the Talk page; I don't have a source other than the friend in question. Just thought it might be worth a chuckle. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 20:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:American Civil War

2007-03-23T23:42:47Z

Niwrad:

Palindrome

2007-03-23T23:37:11Z

Niwrad: /* Examples */ bulleted the examples to make them clearer

A palindrome is a word, phrase, sentence, or number that can be read the same backwards and forwards.

==Examples==
*Racecar
*A man, a plan, a canal, Panama
*1858581

User talk:Brooker

2007-03-23T23:33:18Z

Niwrad:

==impureitisation of the English Language==
Go ahead and tell me how you believe Americans have 'impureitised' the English language, would you? [[User:MGA|MGA]] 20:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::"Polka dots".."Elevator"..Your pronounciation of "Aluminium" (amongst other words). It's "ALUMINIUM", not "Aloominum". Seriously, the whole of the British Isles thinks this.

:::so you believe US should still follow the rules of England? Do you also kiss the picture of Queen Elizebeth II everyday? [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you want to call your language English, it might be nice if you spoke - English. If you want to call it American, then that's fine, talk about all the "Aloominum" you want. Your comment about QEII is slightly ironic considering the American daily oath to the flag.

:English people are usully rather stupid. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 23:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a really helpful remark. And if you're going to pick on spelling, get your own house in order. It's "usually", not "usully." [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 19:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Cuban Missile Crisis

2007-03-23T23:31:15Z

Niwrad: Added stub template - this needs a lot more meat. I'll see what I can dig out of my naval history stuff soon as I finish unpacking the rest of the books :-)

{{stub}}

The United States uncovered that the Soviet Union was installing offensive missiles and air bases in Cuba. President John Kennedy demanded that the Soviets remove the missiles. To ensure this happened he sent a blockade to the island. Eventually, Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier at the time, backed down to avoid a war with the United States.

Spell checker

2007-03-23T23:20:34Z

Niwrad:

{{stub}}

An item of software used to highlight incorrect spellings in multiple language and country-specific options. Most word processing programs these days include spell checkers, grammar checkers and thesauruses as an integral part of the word-processing package; the default settings of these programs generally tends to reflect their country of manufacture. Nevertheless, most of them can be configured to suit the user's preferences.

Islam

2007-03-23T23:00:26Z

Niwrad: /* Five Pillars of Islam */

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religion based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a 7th century Arab political and religious figure. The word "Islam" means "submission." The followers of Islam are called [[Muslim|Muslims]] or Moslems. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be God's last and greatest prophet. Muslims believe that God (Allah, in Arabic) revealed the [[Qu'ran]] to Muhammad. The [[Qu'ran]] is considered to be the pure and holy word of Allah. Like [[Christianity]], and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]] and claims to trace it's roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Islam outnumber those to Christianity.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD: Numbers of adherents; names of houses of worship; names of leaders; rates of growth...]</ref>

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], the Islamic holy city.]]

===Five Pillars of Islam===

*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except the God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Pages from the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Christianity==

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him to be one of God's most important prophets. However, the Qu'ran warns against worshiping Jesus, for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified: ''“Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ He that worships
other deities besides God, God will deny paradise, and the Fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers.
Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is one of three.’ There is but one God. If they do not
desist from saying so, they shall be sternly punished.” (5:73-75)''

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.

==Islam and Paganism==

Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty [[Allah|God]], some Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like some of the [[church]], can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to link Allah to a moon deity, though Allah is cited in the Koran as the God of Abraham and Isaac (Judaism and Christianity). <ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork (also practiced in Orthodox Judaism) originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal. <ref>Ibid.</ref> There is some evidence that some traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism. However no such claims have been properly verified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>

==Sharia==

[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Koran; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of Allah by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Earth

2007-03-22T02:23:54Z

Niwrad: /* Secular Earth Information */

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]

== Secular Earth Information ==

The '''Earth''' is the third planet from the Sun. Its equatorial circumference (measured around the equator) is 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometers), and the polar circumference is slightly less at 24,809 miles (40,008 km).[http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm] The reason its metric circumference is so close to the "round number" of 40,000 is that the French defined the [[kilometer]] as 1/10,000th the distance from the equator to the [[North Pole]].

The Earth orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible.

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

== Young Earth Information ==

Followers in Young Earth creationsim believe in a different set of facts about the Earth. The Bible states in Genesis that the entire earth was formed in six days. Young Earth creationists believe, as Biblical chronology suggests, that the Earth was formed in 4004 B.C. Mainstream scientific journals discriminate against this point of view, and do not allow for their publication, despite large amounts of evidence backing this theory. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp 1] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp 2][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400 3][http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage 4]

Some Young Earth Creationists, because they are biblical literalists also dispute the shape of the earth, and the idea that the Earth Rotates around the Sun.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

===Shape of the Earth===
In Revelations 7:1 it is stated:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth..." (Revelations 7:1)

A sphere has no corners. The four corners are also mentioned in Isaiah 11:12. Some say this is a figure of speach, a view literalists reject.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

It is also stated:

"Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:35)

AND

"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" (Daniel 4:10-11)

AND

"Behold, [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelations 1:7)

AND

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." (Matthew 4:8)

Such mountains, such a tree or such a view of Jesus could only be possible on a flat earth could only be possible on a flat earth. <ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

===Position of the Earth===
In the view of the Bible the Earth is fixed, and the sun revolves around it. This can be found in several passages:

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

==Christianity and the Earth==

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not a priori biased in favor of creationism. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Evolutionists, claim that scientific evidence, obtained through the [[scientific method]], suggests otherwise, dating the earth at beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> In addition, many human societies predate the alleged creation of the world at 4000 B.C.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Scientists, however, usually invoke some form of anthropic principle<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref> to interpret such apparent coincidences.

==References==
<references/>

Earth

2007-03-22T02:22:21Z

Niwrad: /* Secular Earth Information */ corrected slight error in terminology - circumference for diameter

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]

== Secular Earth Information ==

The '''Earth''' is the third planet from the Sun. Its equatorial circumference (measured around the equator) is 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometers), and the polar circumference is slightly less at 24,809 miles (40,008 km).[http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm] The reason its metric diameter is so close to the "round number" of 40,000 is that the French defined the [[kilometer]] as 1/10,000th the distance from the equator to the [[North Pole]].

The Earth orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible.

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

== Young Earth Information ==

Followers in Young Earth creationsim believe in a different set of facts about the Earth. The Bible states in Genesis that the entire earth was formed in six days. Young Earth creationists believe, as Biblical chronology suggests, that the Earth was formed in 4004 B.C. Mainstream scientific journals discriminate against this point of view, and do not allow for their publication, despite large amounts of evidence backing this theory. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp 1] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp 2][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400 3][http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage 4]

Some Young Earth Creationists, because they are biblical literalists also dispute the shape of the earth, and the idea that the Earth Rotates around the Sun.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

===Shape of the Earth===
In Revelations 7:1 it is stated:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth..." (Revelations 7:1)

A sphere has no corners. The four corners are also mentioned in Isaiah 11:12. Some say this is a figure of speach, a view literalists reject.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

It is also stated:

"Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:35)

AND

"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" (Daniel 4:10-11)

AND

"Behold, [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelations 1:7)

AND

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." (Matthew 4:8)

Such mountains, such a tree or such a view of Jesus could only be possible on a flat earth could only be possible on a flat earth. <ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

===Position of the Earth===
In the view of the Bible the Earth is fixed, and the sun revolves around it. This can be found in several passages:

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

==Christianity and the Earth==

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not a priori biased in favor of creationism. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Evolutionists, claim that scientific evidence, obtained through the [[scientific method]], suggests otherwise, dating the earth at beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> In addition, many human societies predate the alleged creation of the world at 4000 B.C.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Scientists, however, usually invoke some form of anthropic principle<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref> to interpret such apparent coincidences.

==References==
<references/>

User talk:David R

2007-03-21T02:43:11Z

Niwrad:

====''Please [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new comment]!''====

== Willy's edits ==

If you look at Willy's edits, most of them seem reasonable. I would for example point to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton&curid=6229&diff=16759&oldid=16751 Bill Clinton edit] which took out what appears to be a swipe at George Bush and replaced it with reasonable material. The Bush and Democrat edits similarly seem fine to me. (Also, I'm not sure it makes sense to give an indefinite block for the single use of profanity but that's a separate issue). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I did like the changes he made to the democrat page (and I plan to restore that page), in removing the obvious bias, but he cursed in his explanation of the Bush edit - Commandment #3. There is no room in Conservapedia for obscene language like that. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:36, 25 February 2007 (EST)

: So, and insults aren't tolerated on Wikipedia either- so you warn the person not to do it again and block them if they do. While larger Wikis can afford to be more picky about editing, we don't have that luxury yes. Also, if you are that concerned about profanity, I suggest you delete the dif and then make the edit again. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:I understand your point of view, but he broke the rules. Profanity calls for immediate deletion. And thank you for the suggestion. I am going to fix that now. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::David was exactly right to block this user. The profanity was bad and it was placed in a comment for everyone to see. We're not going to cheapen this website with vulgarity and obscenity. The [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] say that can result in immediate blocking, and in this case the blocking is precisely what I would have done.

::Disagreements are allowed and encouraged. Vulgarity or obscenity results in immediate blocking, particularly when it is in an entry name, revision comment, or user id. This is a consistently applied rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Also be aware that Willy on Wheels is the name of a famous vandal on Wikipedia. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Thank you MountainDew. If I didn't feel justified in blocking him before (which I did), then I do now...--[[User:David R|David R]] 23:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: You can say that again, David. Thanks much for that insight, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Willy on Wheels' recent edits don't look like vandalism, but vulgarity in an edit remark is not a good sign.

:::: But, for background, Willy on Wheels was indeed a famous vandal on Wikipedia, so much so that the use of such a user name seems ''very'' provocative to me. However, Willy on Wheels m.o. was a "move vandal." ''Dwight D. Eisenhower'' would become ''Dwight D. Eisenhower on wheels,'' ''Molybdenum'' would become ''Molybdenum on wheels,'' and so forth. He specialized in moving as many article as he could as fast as possible. This is obviously someone different, but he should certainly be asked about his choice of user name. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::: P. S. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]], you and I are used to the Wikipedia environment, in which (although nobody around here believes it) things like protecting pages and blocking users are taken as very serious business, and are done with the context of rather strict rules which sysops (usually!) follow. It makes being a sysop rather laborious, in fact. It's possible that Conservapedia is right to be less formal.

:::: But I would caution about one thing. Since it is still possible for a blocked user to start a new account, as far as I know, when blocking a user you must not think that you've created an impenetrable shield, but that you are trying to get the user to modify his or her behavior by using negative reinforcement (what they call "a timeout" in the parenting books). Blocks might as well be rather short. They should be long enough for the user to realize that they've been blocked, and to be a little shocked by it. A reasonable user who's been blocked will react by being more careful about their edit comments in future, for example.

:::: But any seriously hostile user will just create a new account and start over. (It's always interesting to try to judge whether new users are re-creations of blocked user by observing their editing styles. It's never possible for an ordinary user to do more than guess at this, of course). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::: P. P. S. Another problem with blocking is that it is reasonably effective on ''regular editors,'' who have been around for a while and think of their usernames as a kind of identity. If I were blocked on Wikipedia for a day, I'd wait it out, because I ''like'' my user name, there are people who know me under my user name, I'm (foolishly and vainly) proud of having a large number of edits under that name, and of forth. I could create a new account under a new name, but it (sob) just wouldn't be ''me.'' This probably applies to most people whose usernames are variants of their real name.

:::: But a vandal, who just created the account a few days ago, isn't going to care that much.

:::: Think "conversion, not coercion." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, Dpbsmith, the user's IP address is blocked from entering the website at all. Believe me, I already got blocked once :). The only way for the user to get back in would be for him to change his IP address, which I believe ''is'' possible. But it takes some knowledge and persistence. --[[User:David R|David R]] 09:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)

: Actually, it is pretty trivial to change one's IP address. For example, if one is using AOL then the IP address changes almost constantly. Similarly, for almost any dial-up service all you need to do to change IP addresses is hang up and redial. Blocking an IP address does very little. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::Oh. I'm sorry. I'm not too familiar with AOL(except for all those trial CD's they send) or dial-up. I do know that with IE and some other browsers, you must go to the IP Configuration screen at computer start-up. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::It's also worth noting that, for a number of high-speed services, the IP address seen by Conservapedia (or Wikipedia or any other web service) is often an ISP's 'gateway' IP or IP cloud; the actual IP of a specific user is internal to the provider, in which case blocking the IP address or address group risks blocking other folx who happen to use the same service provider. Not sure what's to be done about it, but just thought I'd mention this point. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blocks==

:::Good block, David. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::No problem. Two weeks enough? I don't know if he'll be back to help or hurt. I can always increase it. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Two weeks sounds good in borderline cases, as in that case. I often put in an infinite block if the person is directly harmful to the site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Bonobos ==

I was in the process of expanding and cleaning the language of that up. I'd appreciate if you would undelete it for me to work on. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, no problem. Just can't leave that kind of stuff up for too long. Good looking out, Joshua. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:38, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: Thanks, I've cleaned it up, expanded it and taken out the more blunt language. Let me know how it is.

:Its definitely a cleaner article. Thank you very much. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Could you remove the pluralization on the word female in that article? My computer is going crazy with "forbidden words". --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Actually, I changed it in a slightly different fashion to just "females" since I think it is clear what types of females one is talking about. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::Ok, that makes sense. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::: And you are fine with how I hanlded the sexuality issue? (I have to say, I don't know why the original editor put in the details other than to be annoying or test our limits). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:19, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::::Yes, it was improved dramatically. Thank you. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Image resizing ==

In reference to my new image file on musical notes: ''Please'' resize it if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, the software blew up--and when I put an internal link into the article, telling it to scale the image down, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in [[CreationWiki]]. When I do, the software blows up, saying that "no such file or directory" exists. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then ''show me how'' for future reference.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Bill Clinton ==

What happened is Dprbsmith moved the Clinton page back to where it was originally. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Back to Bill Clinton? I was unaware that it had ever been there before. Thank you. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Great work! ==

Great effort, David, with your entry on [[Alvin York]]!!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Oh thanks. I had to write an informational essay about him in another history class and I thought it would be good to put it on the site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Tehran ==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tehran&diff=19461&oldid=19458 this]? Would you like to argue that Mahmoud was not the former mayor of Tehran, and is not the current president of Iran? It's not misinformation. Ask for a source, I'd be glad to give it to you. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

No, I was mistaken. I did not see that you had edited it correctly. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I got the source anyways, it's on there now, feel free to critique. I'm new to Conservapedia, and am still figuring out the fine differences between it and Wikipedia. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Delete and block ==

I presume you will want to delete [[Cretinism]] and warn or block the user who made it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Wow...yeah I was just about to delete the redirect. But I don't this blocking the user for the entry is justifiable in this case. His entry was a thoughtful redirect for the incompetent speller :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: You may want to look up what cretinism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Yeah...I guess I should have. Blocking was definitely the right choice. Sorry about that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==On my talk page==
Explain what you believe is not factual when accusing someone of not adding factual information. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]]

: What ''is'' factual about what was posted [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Democratic Party+

At least please do some serious work yourself on the Democratic Party entry. This site is so embarrassingly uneducated. Why not produce something you can be proud of? [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]

:While the article could use some work - articles always need work; they are never perfect - it did not need the "work" you suggested. As for this site, it is not uneducated nor embarrassing. In fact, I am positive that this project will look great on my college transcript.

From [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]: seriously, it depends on what you intend to do after college. Do think seriously and ask for good advice from a *range* of people about what your having participated in this site's effort may signal to others.

:Actually, the mere fact that I participated in making this site is enough. My involvement has nothing to do with the material or the stance of this site. How many students have you heard of making an online encyclopedia? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I am very proud of this site. I did not think it would turn out as great as it has. As for contributing any more material to the article, I am afraid I can't - need to be up early for my SATs tomorrow! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. Sign your posts please. It makes it so much easier to respond.

Please also explain your objections to my edits on the Democratic Party entry. What constituted "vandalism" in my edits?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]

You inserted your own biased comments and advertized a site that provided nothing to the article. There you go - my explanation. Enjoy. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him ==

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:31, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I told you, I can't. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. Christian Concern's edits may have been troublesome, but expletiveSaddams were directly harmful to the site. They should be the first priority. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== expletivesaddaam question ==

Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? I need to look at his edits and then decide if to ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:His '''name''' is the problem. Please assume your duties as a Sysop and block him. Do that first. Then revert his edits. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Why are you asking me to ban someone and then.... ==

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then not giving me the information I need in order to ban him. Unless you tell me an article he edited I cannot find him to ban him. 22:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:Are you so dense??? His name contains a curse word! He needs to be blocked. But this user sounds like he regrets using the name, so block him but uncheck the box underneath to allow account recreation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

PS go to Full Metal Jackets talk page, look at history, proceed from there

== I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please ==

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please next time give me an article the person edited so I can find the person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:43, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

If you told me that at the beginning, I would have gladly given you the information. His edit ''was'' on the recent edits page... --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:44, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Why did... ==

Why did you erase my edits and remove some characters from the [[Talk:Main_Page]] page? Please explain...? [[User:GofG|GofG]] 23:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, because they did have any value as the page issue had been taken care of. Plus they just added the unneeded vulgarity where it could not "be lost in the recent history". It was nothing personal at all. Most of your edits have been very valuable. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:20, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Religions: They're not ALL True! ==

It says right on the front page: "
:Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America."

So why did you edit the [[religion]] page to lump Christianity in with the FALSE religions? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:03, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I was wondering who was asking me this. I did not say they were all true. I am a Christian. I have no reason to say that Christianity isn't true. I believe it is true. But we cannot say that here. It is just too biased. Take for contrast, wikipedia saying that secularism is the only true religion. That would never work. But they hint through every other article that secularism and a god-less humanity is the true religion. Likewise, instead of explicitly stating Christianity is the only true religion, we must hint that it is though our own articles. Your version would instantly turn away anyone from another religion. Christianity should not alienate other human beings. They need this encyclopedia more than we do. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Uh huh. And the NEXT thing you'e going to do is let all the liberals and atheists and whatnot start posting here, so this place can become "wikipedia junior"? If so, we might as well just post there and not waste our time!
THE TRUTH DOES NOT HAVE A "BIAS"! It sounds like you're ASHAMED of Jesus! --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:13, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I really wish you hadn't accused me of such a thing, as there is nothing further from the truth. As for the liberals and atheists, if they have something intelligent to post, I say let them. I will disregard your comments as they are probably driven by some emotional factor. Think about what you are saying before you click save. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:19, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Dude, I gotta love you for letting the liberals (myself included) post. I was worried this was going to turn into a full-on propaganda site, but if you're open to letting us get a word in it might be worth sticking around for. The way you just phrased that though I found hilarious. "instead of explicitly stating Christianity is the only true religion, we must hint that it is though our own articles." you may need to check the definition of hint, though. Some of these articles are just ridiculous.

Haha. Yeah funny. I guess you saw the part where I "hinted" that most liberals and athiest ''truly don't'':D have anything intelligent to say!!! Your right. It '''is''' pretty funny. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Tree ==

Not to be rude, but I honestly can not tell whether [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Is_it_wrong_to_have_a_Christmas_tree%3F&diff=23929&oldid=23927 this] was serious or sarcastic. Could you tell me? After all, text doesn't convey emotion or voice :D. Sorry, --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:04, 11 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure, either. That's the trouble with debates over the internet. I think David is saying that the tree is a distraction to the faith. The tree is not a religious symbol.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Haha. Sorry, I did not write that well. The guy we were debating said that the tree was an idol. And while the tree, could be a distraction to the faith as Mr. Schlafly suggested, I was eluding to the fact that most Christians are not sitting in their homes on Christmas, worshiping the tree. Debates over the Internet are difficult. Though in context with what I had been saying before, the entry should have been taken as sarcastic. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. The tree really isn't even part of Christmas. Its a decorative tradition from Germany dating back to pagan times and is certainly not central to the Christian faith. Its no more Christian than a Santa Claus parade (which is more about Saint Nicholas and the warping of his story). Sadly, we don't have Jesus Christ parades.

== Sentence fragments? ==

I haven't noticed any sentence fragments.

Please point out specific ones if there are any and I shall fix them.

I have already fixed them all. See any of your originals in their respective history and you will see what I mean. Using the page title as the sentence's subject does not look "encyclopediac". Your contributions have been great. Just write whole sentences and I'm sure you'll do fine. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commonly Misspelled Words ==

Joke: Ive noticed quit a few words that are mispelled on here. I imagine its becuz the site is still relatively knew and nobody has bothered too go over everything with a fine-tooth coomb. :)

:Yes. It is a big problem. None or at most one of my recent edits have misspelled words, because I have a new internet browser with an in-browser-spell-checker! Unfortunately, it looks as if very few others have this great tool... --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Venona series==
David, I am the author of virtually the entire Venona series in Wikiepdia; the entries I am moving here a my original work, as many current versions are sanitized of all relevent content. Here's my original user page w/Barnstar for Venobna series. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nobs01] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I didn't know that. I'll restore them right away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks David. There are almost three hundred articles in the series. I don't see the necessity to bring them all over at once. However, some of the major articles, like [[Whittaker Chambers]] for example, just contrast that one with the current Wikipedia entry to get some idea of whats happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

:Look at the work that was put into it so they could (1) refer to his mentally ill-grandmother; (2) use the word "dysfunctional" twice; (3) add "an enemy of the Republic, a blasphemer of Christ, a disbeliever in God, with no respect for matrimony or motherhood."[11] (4) ...a psychiatrist who characterized Chambers as a "psychopathic personality" and "a pathological liar."[12]

:WP:ATTFAQ refers to "obsolete and deprecated" sources. Venona evidence makes all this obsolete and deprecated. Nonetheless, in absense of any verifiable citations to discredit Chamber's testimony against Hiss, Wikipedia editors still resort to Hiss's obsolete and deprecated slanders cause they simply will not give up on a losing cause. Now you know why Conservapedia was founded. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blah ==

Scorpionman's dead! I killed him! Now I come for you! Beware, David! Hahahahaha! [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

^This is what I have to deal with...Cyber-killing is a new term for me; I hope to find out how he did such a thing. Personally, I love how vandals sometimes make our site look more intelligent than it (already) is. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution==

I saw your comment and I'll try to avoid talking with those blockheads (although, being a person of short temper (ashamedly) I find it quite difficult) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Talk Page==
Whoops!!! I thought I had. My apologies. Thanks for catching that.

No problem. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==The [[Bible]] vandal==
I suggest we take the guy at his word and prosecute him, as he dared us. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead, please.
:Yeah, that'd be great. Did you at least get a little chuckle at the wombat edit? [[User:Bush2008|Bush2008]] 19:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I certainly appreciated it --[[User:BB2|BB2]] 20:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
<nowiki><!-- I dared you --!></nowiki>

::Yeah, I don't mind. It is, after all, what he asked for. Were all of his accounts blocked? I thought I got about five or six of them. Haha, obviously he knows how to use the HTML comment tag: <nowiki>"<!-- I dared you --!>"</nowiki> Unfortunately for him, I do too. Obviously, it was BB2 above that added that comment. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Block EditGenius ==

This is the content he posted: "Terrorists are Muslim radicals bent on destroying America. They are determined to kill Americans becuase they hate our freedom. Terrorists are free of moral restraint and will use any unholy means to murder and maim."

Now, he may be right about a lot of that, but its a rant and not a good article. Maybe a strong warning?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok. I'll give him a warning. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:You know, I think that sounded a lot like a silly parody of Christianity. You know, he made that comment to try and represent conservatives as intolerant bigots who say things like that. Check [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Allah:_The_Annotated_Version this article] on Uncyclopedia. Very amusing. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

thay are ignorant nationalist bigiots for your information

== Your comments on my userpage ==

QED on what caused them, eh? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 19:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not familiar with QED. If you'll explain it, I will be glad to answer your question. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''''quod erat demonstrandum''''' or '''"QED"''' basically means "quite proven", which ''does seem'' to prove her point about Americans not knowing anything beyond their own borders. The phrase is well known in England.

==Last Block==

Yup ^-^ Didn't really wanna do it cause I feel he will turn out to be a vandal, but I figured he deserved a chance.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:We can always block him for good. Good job! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On some of the topics dealing with the Gods/Goddesses of the old Norse Pantheon, I changed the terms mythology to religion, because quite frankly, those of us who follow the old norse traditions are still around. If these continue to be refered to as myth, why don't you consider changing articles refering to all religious figures as myth as well, just to be fair to all people of all faiths. I'm not trying to cause an argument, I merely want to keep things fair around here.

== What merited a banning threat from you? ==

What did I write that was so factually inaccurate? It would also be helpful if you pointed out where I violated these commandments. - [[User:Mark|Mark]]

Your changes to the United States of America article were purely opinionated. They were not based on fact. I believe we have a commandment about that? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: That user has been permanently blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::O ok. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Dino article help ==

I considerably beefed up the [[dinosaur]] article. I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists. I protected the article until they agreed to do that. Another Sysop [[User:Niandra]] unlocked the article. I would appreciate your support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:You know why I unlocked the article, it is stated in the summary description. It was incredibly rude of you to lock it back up within 15 minutes. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: block threat ==

sorry about the opinions, i followed the tone set by the first paragraph. if you want to keep opinion out of it, fine, but stop "fixing" the aftermath bit on the 100 dollar fine. he wasn't charged due to a technicality. that isn't an opinion

"commandments". hilarious. gotta love this site.

Ok. Provide a acceptable citation for the fine issue and I will leave it. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Questions ==

One, if someone tries to be helpful and tries to incorporate accurate information into the site, why do you block them for an infinite amount of time? And two, if your goal is accuracy, wouldn't you want intelligent people?

:Ok. First, I have two questions for you: When have I blocked someone because they tried to incorporate accurate information into the site? When did I say I didn't want intelligent people on this site? You are coming at me with these questions that don't really seem to pertain to me at all...If you would address my questions, I am sure I'll be able to respond with a satisfying answer to yours. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mr. Pony ==

I find that what he is doing is not vandalism but rather an addition of AD. It might sound stupid but it will allow Conservapedia to become more encyclopedic. Prove me wrong if what he is doing is in direct violation of a rule. Also if you will allow him to do this, make sure he posts AD in the correct locations, not after actual names of events. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia article ==

Please see the discussion at [[Talk:Conservapedia]]... Feel free to semi-protect or fully protect the article, but it has a number of backlinks expecting to go to a page describing the wiki, rather than showing the wiki itself (much like the [[Wikipedia]] page briefly describes Wikipedia, rather than redirecting to Wikipedia's main page). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 22:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-03-21T02:19:25Z

Niwrad: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a contenant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with.
:Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'contenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-03-21T02:18:57Z

Niwrad: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a contenant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with.
:Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'contenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-03-21T02:17:38Z

Niwrad: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a contenant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with.
:Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'conetenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-21T02:07:34Z

Niwrad: /* I don't care, but... */

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-03-19T02:05:20Z

Niwrad: /* I created an article at another website */

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* Your question solicits opinion, not fact. Can it be conclusively demonstrated that his illness was Divine punishment? If not, I would say leave it out. Unless it's proven, it doesn't matter how many people think this or that about it. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== A note on Darwin ==

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-19T01:54:37Z

Niwrad:

User talk:The Four Deuces

2007-03-19T01:50:12Z

Niwrad: New page: == Please provide source == On the entry on Canada, you added the following: <blockquote>Mr. Harper described Canada to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy as...

== Please provide source ==

On the entry on Canada, you added the following:

<blockquote>Mr. Harper described Canada to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy as "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States."</blockquote>

Please provide the source for this quote. From the text, it looks as if Mr. Harper was addressing a group of American politicians. I find it hard to believe a Canadian politician would call down his own country to a group of what would be, from his perspective, foreign politicians. Further, what purpose does the quote serve in the article? If it was a valid quote, I could see it being applicable in a discussion of Canada's government, but there's no such discussion in the article. As a result, the inclusion of this quote appears to serve no other function than to denigrate Canada and Canadians. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 21:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-19T01:39:15Z

Niwrad: Changed indents to correct impression of who I was replying to. Change noted in the discussion.

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremburg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.
::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::('''Note''' - edited very slightly to change the indents, as I realized that it looked as though I was disagreeing with [[User:TimSvendsen]], when actually I was disagreeing with [[User:PhilipB]]. My bad.) [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 21:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Addendum''' - BTW, Mr. New was NOT being 'forced into a foreign military'; the UN does not maintain armed forces of its own. He was told off to participate, as a member of his unit, an American military unit, in a UN operation '''supported and endorsed by the government of the United States.''' Whether nor not the US should have been involved in that is not for him to decide, other than as a voter at the polls. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

== Comment ==

It's also worth noting that the question itself is somewhat misleading. There is no 'UN uniform'. There are UN-pattern kit items which are nationally issued, such as badges, UN-blue berets, helmets, etc. They are supplied by the member nations to conform to their own military kit; thus, American soldiers use American helmets either painted UN blue or with a UN blue liner. Similarly, British soldiers use British kit, Canadians use Canadian kit, etc., etc. It has to be this way as the UN has no authority to issue uniform items to the military personnel of member nations. Just thought I'd correct the misapprehension. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 21:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-19T01:31:37Z

Niwrad:

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremburg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Addendum''' - BTW, Mr. New was NOT being 'forced into a foreign military'; the UN does not maintain armed forces of its own. He was told off to participate, as a member of his unit, an American military unit, in a UN operation '''supported and endorsed by the government of the United States.''' Whether nor not the US should have been involved in that is not for him to decide, other than as a voter at the polls. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

== Comment ==

It's also worth noting that the question itself is somewhat misleading. There is no 'UN uniform'. There are UN-pattern kit items which are nationally issued, such as badges, UN-blue berets, helmets, etc. They are supplied by the member nations to conform to their own military kit; thus, American soldiers use American helmets either painted UN blue or with a UN blue liner. Similarly, British soldiers use British kit, Canadians use Canadian kit, etc., etc. It has to be this way as the UN has no authority to issue uniform items to the military personnel of member nations. Just thought I'd correct the misapprehension. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 21:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-18T17:23:40Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremburg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Addendum''' - BTW, Mr. New was NOT being 'forced into a foreign military'; the UN does not maintain armed forces of its own. He was told off to participate, as a member of his unit, an American military unit, in a UN operation '''supported and endorsed by the government of the United States.''' Whether nor not the US should have been involved in that is not for him to decide, other than as a voter at the polls. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-03-18T08:14:18Z

Niwrad: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-18T08:11:29Z

Niwrad: /* No */

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Addendum''' - BTW, Mr. New was NOT being 'forced into a foreign military'; the UN does not maintain armed forces of its own. He was told off to participate, as a member of his unit, an American military unit, in a UN operation '''supported and endorsed by the government of the United States.''' Whether nor not the US should have been involved in that is not for him to decide, other than as a voter at the polls. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-18T08:11:10Z

Niwrad: /* No */

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Addendum - BTW, Mr. New was NOT being 'forced into a foreign military'; the UN does not maintain armed forces of its own. He was told off to participate, as a member of his unit, an American military unit, in a UN operation '''supported and endorsed by the government of the United States.''' Whether nor not the US should have been involved in that is not for him to decide, other than as a voter at the polls. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-18T08:08:32Z

Niwrad: /* No */

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-18T08:00:58Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-03-18T08:00:33Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-18T07:34:15Z

Niwrad:

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-18T07:33:58Z

Niwrad:

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. 03:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-17T22:38:36Z

Niwrad: /* Layout suggestions */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

*I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here. Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? I posted this elsewhere, but feel perhaps this is the better place for it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 00:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:South Park has had a huge affect on American society in general, and has been praised for taking on social issues. In the last episode (a new one is on in 15 minutes), they used the N-word 43 times, to great applause. It has a huge audience. It's notable, and I suspect the only reason removal has been proposed is it's vulgarity. I mean, there needs to be a distinction between "hollywood gossip" and truly notable stuff; Lord of the Rings is notable. Harry Potter is notable. South Park is notable. When I think non-notable, I think something really, really obscure; the person who was cast as "frightened child #7" in an art-house movie a decade ago. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to sign on with MountainDew on this one, with the further observations that, particularly with personal names, while it is polite and well-mannered to use the named individual's preferred spelling, one should also keep in mind the limits of keyboards and editors' knowledge of how to generate non-English characters or characters with diacritical marks. For instance, there are accents and double-accents in a number of Hungarian proper names, and it would be ridiculous to expect non-Hungarians to be familiar with them or with the process of generating them. Perhaps in such instances we could have a template that the article author could use to request assistance from the computer-savvy in the crowd for such things. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Have thought about this some more and decided to create a simple help article and a template to request help with diacritical marks. The article ([[Diacritical marks]]) recommends that such marks be rendered temporarily with standard punctuation; e.g., a lower-case e with a circumflex over it should be marked as '''!e^!'''. Then the author should include the template '''<nowiki>{{diacritical}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the article; the template automatically includes the article in a category named '''Editing help requested''' so the more experienced editors can easily find such requests for help. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Given that Dpbsmith just provided all and sundry with a really simple way of doing unit conversions, I don't see it as a huge bother. Just include the procedure in a 'how-to' page for prospective article editors. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am personally offended that anyone would claim that we should use metric units. God and America both use the traditional American system of measurement and '''EVERY''' fact on this site should be forced into the same format.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If anything, God probably uses Hebrew units of measure. Last time I checked, the account of Noah and the flood makes reference to cubits. I don't recall seeing 'cubits' listed anywhere in the standard measures listed by ANSI. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 23:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer option 2. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Option 1''' Does google convert units into cubits? It does! [[User:Myk|Myk]]

*After prayer, God has told me Option 2 would be best. And he wanted me to remind Niwrad, he didn't even think about America until much later. (LOL) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

*Let's see his "proof" that he was born an American! :p (that's a joke) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-17T20:16:10Z

Niwrad: /* No */

I think that Relgion is just a tool to make people fell safe and not alone in this world. However alot of its beliefs are proven wrong by modern science. Such as carbon dateing with fossils and so on. so now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. Cuz i would like to think of myself as more inteligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.
==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-17T20:11:37Z

Niwrad: /* Neither */

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-17T20:08:53Z

Niwrad: /* Neither */

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor'''. He got raked over the coals, too, by some as somehow being responsible - near as I can make out, this particular set of clowns figure he gave bin Laden & Co. the idea for the methodology of their attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-17T19:49:51Z

Niwrad: /* American English spelling and foreign names. */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

*I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here. Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? I posted this elsewhere, but feel perhaps this is the better place for it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 00:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:South Park has had a huge affect on American society in general, and has been praised for taking on social issues. In the last episode (a new one is on in 15 minutes), they used the N-word 43 times, to great applause. It has a huge audience. It's notable, and I suspect the only reason removal has been proposed is it's vulgarity. I mean, there needs to be a distinction between "hollywood gossip" and truly notable stuff; Lord of the Rings is notable. Harry Potter is notable. South Park is notable. When I think non-notable, I think something really, really obscure; the person who was cast as "frightened child #7" in an art-house movie a decade ago. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to sign on with MountainDew on this one, with the further observations that, particularly with personal names, while it is polite and well-mannered to use the named individual's preferred spelling, one should also keep in mind the limits of keyboards and editors' knowledge of how to generate non-English characters or characters with diacritical marks. For instance, there are accents and double-accents in a number of Hungarian proper names, and it would be ridiculous to expect non-Hungarians to be familiar with them or with the process of generating them. Perhaps in such instances we could have a template that the article author could use to request assistance from the computer-savvy in the crowd for such things. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Have thought about this some more and decided to create a simple help article and a template to request help with diacritical marks. The article ([[Diacritical marks]]) recommends that such marks be rendered temporarily with standard punctuation; e.g., a lower-case e with a circumflex over it should be marked as '''!e^!'''. Then the author should include the template '''<nowiki>{{diacritical}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the article; the template automatically includes the article in a category named '''Editing help requested''' so the more experienced editors can easily find such requests for help. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Given that Dpbsmith just provided all and sundry with a really simple way of doing unit conversions, I don't see it as a huge bother. Just include the procedure in a 'how-to' page for prospective article editors. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am personally offended that anyone would claim that we should use metric units. God and America both use the traditional American system of measurement and '''EVERY''' fact on this site should be forced into the same format.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If anything, God probably uses Hebrew units of measure. Last time I checked, the account of Noah and the flood makes reference to cubits. I don't recall seeing 'cubits' listed anywhere in the standard measures listed by ANSI. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 23:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer option 2. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Option 1''' Does google convert units into cubits? It does! [[User:Myk|Myk]]

*After prayer, God has told me Option 2 would be best. And he wanted me to remind Niwrad, he didn't even think about America until much later. (LOL) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

*Let's see his "proof" that he was born an American! :p (that's a joke) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-17T19:49:17Z

Niwrad: /* American English spelling and foreign names. */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

*I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here. Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? I posted this elsewhere, but feel perhaps this is the better place for it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 00:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:South Park has had a huge affect on American society in general, and has been praised for taking on social issues. In the last episode (a new one is on in 15 minutes), they used the N-word 43 times, to great applause. It has a huge audience. It's notable, and I suspect the only reason removal has been proposed is it's vulgarity. I mean, there needs to be a distinction between "hollywood gossip" and truly notable stuff; Lord of the Rings is notable. Harry Potter is notable. South Park is notable. When I think non-notable, I think something really, really obscure; the person who was cast as "frightened child #7" in an art-house movie a decade ago. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to sign on with MountainDew on this one, with the further observations that, particularly with personal names, while it is polite and well-mannered to use the named individual's preferred spelling, one should also keep in mind the limits of keyboards and editors' knowledge of how to generate non-English characters or characters with diacritical marks. For instance, there are accents and double-accents in a number of Hungarian proper names, and it would be ridiculous to expect non-Hungarians to be familiar with them or with the process of generating them. Perhaps in such instances we could have a template that the article author could use to request assistance from the computer-savvy in the crowd for such things. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Have thought about this some more and decided to create a simple help article and a template to request help with diacritical marks. The article recommends that such marks be rendered temporarily with standard punctuation; e.g., a lower-case e with a circumflex over it should be marked as '''!e^!'''. Then the author should include the template '''<nowiki>{{diacritical}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the article; the template automatically includes the article in a category named '''Editing help requested''' so the more experienced editors can easily find such requests for help. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Given that Dpbsmith just provided all and sundry with a really simple way of doing unit conversions, I don't see it as a huge bother. Just include the procedure in a 'how-to' page for prospective article editors. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am personally offended that anyone would claim that we should use metric units. God and America both use the traditional American system of measurement and '''EVERY''' fact on this site should be forced into the same format.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If anything, God probably uses Hebrew units of measure. Last time I checked, the account of Noah and the flood makes reference to cubits. I don't recall seeing 'cubits' listed anywhere in the standard measures listed by ANSI. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 23:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer option 2. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Option 1''' Does google convert units into cubits? It does! [[User:Myk|Myk]]

*After prayer, God has told me Option 2 would be best. And he wanted me to remind Niwrad, he didn't even think about America until much later. (LOL) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

*Let's see his "proof" that he was born an American! :p (that's a joke) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Help:Diacritical marks

2007-03-17T19:41:55Z

Niwrad:

== Purpose ==

Diacritical marks are used in many languages other than English to indicate variations in pronounciation. A good example of such marks are accent marks over vowels in French words, or umlauts in Germanic languages. While it is Conservapedia's policy to require American English spelling in articles, it is recognized that personal names and place names may contain such marks and that editors may wish to use them for the sake of accuracy. This article is offered as guidance in how to create such marks for use where desired in articles about people and places outside the United States.

== Help ==

If an author wishes to use such marks but is unsure how to create them, the following procedure is suggested:
* Enclose the letter and desired diacritical mark, in that order, between a pair of exclamation marks, to indicate which letter and mark are supposed to be together
* Use the substitutions listed below to indicate which mark is required:
<table width=75% border=1 align=center bgcolor="white">
<tr bgcolor="#eeeeee" align=center>
<td>'''Diacritical Mark'''</td>
<td colspan=2>'''Substituted Punctuation'''</td>
<td colspan=4>'''Examples'''</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Acute accent</td>
<td>'</td><td>apostrophe</td>
<td>!E'! → É</td>
<td>!e'! → é</td>
<td>!I'! → Í</td>
<td>!u'! → ú</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Grave accent</td>
<td>`</td><td>left apostrophe</td>
<td>!a`! → à</td>
<td>!e`! → è</td>
<td>!U`! → Ù</td>
<td>!o`! → ò</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Circumflex</td>
<td>^</td><td>circumflex (usually Shift-6)</td>
<td>!a^! → â</td>
<td>!A^! → Â</td>
<td>!i^! → î</td>
<td>!O^! → Ô</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Cedil</td>
<td>s</td><td> </td>
<td colspan=4>!cs! → ç</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Umlaut</td>
<td>:</td><td>colon</td>
<td>!a:! → ä</td>
<td>!E:! → Ë</td>
<td>!I:! → Ï</td>
<td>!u:! → ü</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Tilde</td>
<td>~</td><td>tilde</td>
<td>!A~! → Ã</td>
<td>!a~! → ã</td>
<td>!o~! → õ</td>
<td>!N~! → Ñ</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Slash</td>
<td>/</td><td>forward slash</td>
<td colspan=4>!O/! → Ø</td></tr>

</table>
* Request help with converting the substitution into the proper mark by including the '''<nowiki>{{diacritical}}</nowiki>''' template at the top of the article. This will appear as follows:
{{diacritical}}
This will also add the article to the category '''Editing help requested''' so that more experienced editors who wish to assist may readily find all articles requiring such assistance.

== References ==

* http://www.natural-innovations.com/wa/doc-charset.html 
* http://www.utoronto.ca/webdocs/HTMLdocs/NewHTML/en_test.html

Help:Diacritical marks

2007-03-17T19:40:17Z

Niwrad:

== Purpose ==

Diacritical marks are used in many languages other than English to indicate variations in pronounciation. A good example of such marks are accent marks over vowels in French words, or umlauts in Germanic languages. While it is Conservapedia's policy to require American English spelling in articles, it is recognized that personal names and place names may contain such marks and that editors may wish to use them for the sake of accuracy. This article is offered as guidance in how to create such marks for use where desired in articles about people and places outside the United States.

== Help ==

If an author wishes to use such marks but is unsure how to create them, the following procedure is suggested:
* Enclose the letter and desired diacritical mark, in that order, between a pair of exclamation marks, to indicate which letter and mark are supposed to be together
* Use the substitutions listed below to indicate which mark is required:
<table width=75% border=1 align=center bgcolor="white">
<tr bgcolor="#eeeeee" align=center>
<td>'''Diacritical Mark'''</td>
<td colspan=2>'''Substituted Punctuation'''</td>
<td colspan=4>'''Examples'''</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Acute accent</td>
<td>'</td><td>apostrophe</td>
<td>!E'! → É</td>
<td>!e'! → é</td>
<td>!I'! → Í</td>
<td>!u'! → ú</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Grave accent</td>
<td>`</td><td>left apostrophe</td>
<td>!a`! → à</td>
<td>!e`! → è</td>
<td>!U`! → Ù</td>
<td>!o`! → ò</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Circumflex</td>
<td>^</td><td>circumflex (usually Shift-6)</td>
<td>!a^! → â</td>
<td>!A^! → Â</td>
<td>!i^! → î</td>
<td>!O^! → Ô</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Cedil</td>
<td>s</td><td> </td>
<td colspan=4>!cs! → ç</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Umlaut</td>
<td>:</td><td>colon</td>
<td>!a:! → ä</td>
<td>!E:! → Ë</td>
<td>!I:! → Ï</td>
<td>!u:! → ü</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Tilde</td>
<td>~</td><td>tilde</td>
<td>!A~! → Ã</td>
<td>!a~! → ã</td>
<td>!o~! → õ</td>
<td>!N~! → Ñ</td></tr>

<tr align=center>
<td>Slash</td>
<td>/</td><td>forward slash</td>
<td colspan=4>!O/! → Ø</td></tr>

</table>
* Request help with converting the substitution into the proper mark by including the '''<nowiki>{{diacritical}}</nowiki>''' template at the top of the article. This will appear as follows:
{{diacritical}}

== References ==

* http://www.natural-innovations.com/wa/doc-charset.html 
* http://www.utoronto.ca/webdocs/HTMLdocs/NewHTML/en_test.html

Template:Diacritical

2007-03-17T18:49:46Z

Niwrad: created template for editors' use

<table width=80% border=2 bgcolor="#b1ebfe" align="center"><tr><td align="center">
'''The author requests help with diacritical marks.'''
The author of this page does not know how to create characters with accents and other diacritical marks for use in proper names, and requests the assistance of Conservapedia in correcting this article. See [[Diacritical marks]] for further information.</td></tr></table>
<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Editing help requested|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly>

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-17T18:36:39Z

Niwrad: /* American English spelling and foreign names. */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

*I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here. Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? I posted this elsewhere, but feel perhaps this is the better place for it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 00:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:South Park has had a huge affect on American society in general, and has been praised for taking on social issues. In the last episode (a new one is on in 15 minutes), they used the N-word 43 times, to great applause. It has a huge audience. It's notable, and I suspect the only reason removal has been proposed is it's vulgarity. I mean, there needs to be a distinction between "hollywood gossip" and truly notable stuff; Lord of the Rings is notable. Harry Potter is notable. South Park is notable. When I think non-notable, I think something really, really obscure; the person who was cast as "frightened child #7" in an art-house movie a decade ago. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to sign on with MountainDew on this one, with the further observations that, particularly with personal names, while it is polite and well-mannered to use the named individual's preferred spelling, one should also keep in mind the limits of keyboards and editors' knowledge of how to generate non-English characters or characters with diacritical marks. For instance, there are accents and double-accents in a number of Hungarian proper names, and it would be ridiculous to expect non-Hungarians to be familiar with them or with the process of generating them. Perhaps in such instances we could have a template that the article author could use to request assistance from the computer-savvy in the crowd for such things. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Given that Dpbsmith just provided all and sundry with a really simple way of doing unit conversions, I don't see it as a huge bother. Just include the procedure in a 'how-to' page for prospective article editors. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am personally offended that anyone would claim that we should use metric units. God and America both use the traditional American system of measurement and '''EVERY''' fact on this site should be forced into the same format.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If anything, God probably uses Hebrew units of measure. Last time I checked, the account of Noah and the flood makes reference to cubits. I don't recall seeing 'cubits' listed anywhere in the standard measures listed by ANSI. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 23:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer option 2. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Option 1''' Does google convert units into cubits? It does! [[User:Myk|Myk]]

*After prayer, God has told me Option 2 would be best. And he wanted me to remind Niwrad, he didn't even think about America until much later. (LOL) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

*Let's see his "proof" that he was born an American! :p (that's a joke) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-17T18:36:03Z

Niwrad: /* American English spelling and foreign names. */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

*I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here. Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? I posted this elsewhere, but feel perhaps this is the better place for it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 00:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:South Park has had a huge affect on American society in general, and has been praised for taking on social issues. In the last episode (a new one is on in 15 minutes), they used the N-word 43 times, to great applause. It has a huge audience. It's notable, and I suspect the only reason removal has been proposed is it's vulgarity. I mean, there needs to be a distinction between "hollywood gossip" and truly notable stuff; Lord of the Rings is notable. Harry Potter is notable. South Park is notable. When I think non-notable, I think something really, really obscure; the person who was cast as "frightened child #7" in an art-house movie a decade ago. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to sign on with MountainDew on this one, with the further observations that, particularly with personal names, while it is polite and well-mannered to use the named individuals preferred spelling, one should also keep in mind the limits of keyboards and editors' knowledge of how to generate non-English characters. For instance, there are accents and double-accents in a number of Hungarian proper names, and it would be ridiculous to expect non-Hungarians to be familiar with them or with the process of generating them. Perhaps in such instances we could have a template that the article author could use to request assistance from the computer-savvy in the crowd for such things. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Given that Dpbsmith just provided all and sundry with a really simple way of doing unit conversions, I don't see it as a huge bother. Just include the procedure in a 'how-to' page for prospective article editors. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am personally offended that anyone would claim that we should use metric units. God and America both use the traditional American system of measurement and '''EVERY''' fact on this site should be forced into the same format.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If anything, God probably uses Hebrew units of measure. Last time I checked, the account of Noah and the flood makes reference to cubits. I don't recall seeing 'cubits' listed anywhere in the standard measures listed by ANSI. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 23:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer option 2. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Option 1''' Does google convert units into cubits? It does! [[User:Myk|Myk]]

*After prayer, God has told me Option 2 would be best. And he wanted me to remind Niwrad, he didn't even think about America until much later. (LOL) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

*Let's see his "proof" that he was born an American! :p (that's a joke) --[[User:TK|Terry]] 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-17T07:17:24Z

Niwrad: /* Neither */

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-17T07:15:11Z

Niwrad: /* Liberal */

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?

2007-03-17T06:29:33Z

Niwrad: /* Freedom of religion */

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - United States Constitution
----------------------
Amendments can be amended. The fact that we can all legally enjoy a beer is proof (except for you college freshmen and sophomores in New York State)
-----------------------

Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution; it perfectly constitutional to allow a public display of the ten commandments. In fact, if one takes the constitution at its word rather than twisting it (probably by calling it an "evolving document"), it is '''''UN'''''constitutional for congress to prohibit any public display of religion.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Nobody is suggesting that displays of the 10 Commandments by private individuals should not be allowed. The issue is whether any branch of the Government should allow the public display of religious documents for the express purpose of encouraging their acceptance. Specifically, allowing a judge to display the protestant version of the 10 commandments (there are differences between different Christian sects) and to imply he is using them to superceede the actual laws of the country.

:Surely it depends on the context: what message the people who placed the display meant to send, what message is perceived by those who view it.

:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' Despite your straw man, I will answer that, yes, it would be protected. Perhaps the judge who has the swastika should never have been approved as judge, or perhaps there may even be good grounds to impeach him, yet his swastika should not be removed under the excuse that it is religious symbol; that would be unconstitutional. Fortunately I think that there is little chance of this ever being a problem.

:Well, I think that the legal situation here, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, '''must surely depend''' on what is in the judge's heart. If the judge is, in his heart, a Hindu, and has put the swastika up for the purpose of expressing his Hinduism, then it is sending a ''religious'' message. But what if the judge is not really a Hindu at all, but is actually a Nazi, and has put it up to send a ''political'' message and is just pretending that it is a religious message? Is it the same situation?

:Although I used the phrase "free speech" and you might be right: it might be protected regardless of whether it is "really" a Hindu or Nazi symbol, and in both cases the ''speech'' might be protected, but that would not necessarily make the judge immune from consequences. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)

What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 20:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

:'''It depends.''' In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B. DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message.

:Even in the case of something like the Ten Commandments, which are part of the religious heritage of the vast majority of American citizens, there are opportunities for sectarian friction, since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. Incredible as it may seem, this was a real issue when the Eagles began placing these monuments in the 1950s. "It wasn’t until after a few of the monoliths were placed that some criticism surfaced because of the different versions of the Ten Commandments and their numbering. Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and the wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958. Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered."[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*'''Comment''' Some resources for exploring this question include:
**[http://morallaw.org/ Foundation for Moral Law], Judge Roy Moore's organization and website, "Defending our Inalienable Right to Publicly Acknowledge God."
**[http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf Court decision] removing Moore from office (which states "Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country")
**[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The real history of the Ten Commandments project] Website about the partnership between Cecil B. DeMille and the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which placed many Ten Commandments monuments in public places
**[http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html ACLU's website] explaining their viewpoint on Ten Commandments cases: "A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*The ACLU is clearly wrong on this one. The first Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religeon. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)
**Perhaps the ACLU is wrong, but I doubt that they are "''clearly''" wrong. If the issue were clear, it would not be controversial. Since the ACLU has won some of these cases, some judges must have thought some cases of this kind were not "clear." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:32, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I don't quite agree with your argument. The ACLU has an agenga; they are trying to remove religious symbols from public display. Despite the fact that allowing a public display of the 10 commandments '''''is''''' clearly protected by the constitution, the ACLU ''still'' fights it because it is against their agenda. This is why (I believe at any rate) that people call the constitution an "evolving document" and why the 1st ammendment is re-interpreted "eperation of church and state"; The only hope for the ACLU is to '''''reduce''''' clarity.

::: Tim, I'm a bit confused by your logic. You state that "regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religeon." This isn't an issue of congress passing a law prohibiting the display but an issue of whether government officials can have such displays and if so under what circumstances. It isn't at all clear to me what that has to do with congress passing regulations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:03, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::: The only way to prohibit displays of the 10 commandments would be for congress to make a law against them. This is prohibited by the free exercise clause: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [Of Religion.]" The only reason ever given for prohibiting government officials from having displays of the 10 commandments is that it violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is nothing in the establishment clause that prohibits officials from having displays. People say that there is a "Seperation of Church and State," in the first ammendment, but that is not true. The establishment clause was put in to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. (like the Church of England) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::::::People also say there's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in the Constitution, but gosh darn it, I can't seem to find those words anywhere! Does that mean that those, too, are invalid? A public display of the 10 Commandments, on public/government property, is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that it implies that one religion (in this case any one of a number of Christian denominations) is endorsed and valued more highly than any other by government. Government should remain neutral to religion, and the 10 Commandments are certainly not a religiously neutral document.

:::: Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument. You are dismissing out of hand the actual logic used in all cases by the courts where they have struck down such displays and therefore think that the only relevant case is if congress prohibited it? Am I following you correctly? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:47, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::::'''Reply''' I am saying that the "Seperation of Church and State" is not Found in the Constitution, therefore 10 commandments displays cannot be banned based on it, and any court ruling contrary to that is not following the constitution. And the only way to properly ban it (that I can think of)would be an act of congress, and that is prohibited by the free exercise clause. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:58, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Point- since the entire argument revolves around whether or not there is an establishment clause problem, it might be best to focus on that issue. Also note that one doesn't need a "Seperation of Church and State" to consider the placement of a 10 commandments to be an establishment of religion (note that not even everyone agrees how to split them up. As far as I can tell there are three major divisions, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (although some Protestants use the Jewish division, and some Protestants(Anglicans?) use the Catholic division). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

The Establishment clause is very clear, and it does not prohibit government officials free exercise of religion. The division of the commandments is irrelevant to this debate. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::You're right, it doesn't prohibit government officials the free exercise of their religion. It does, however, prohibit governmental endorsement of any religion, which would be implicit in the placement of such a monument on public/government property.

:It's not quite irrelevant, because it means that even though the Ten Commandments are common to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, any particular public display of them ''in which they are numbered one through ten'' is identifiable as being the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish "version." How many people are aware of this, or how important it is, I don't really know. But I'll bet a nickel that Judge Roy Moore ''is'' aware of this, and that his monument uses the Protestant numbering. (I haven't checked yet...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)

:I finally found a largish image of Moore's monument[http://www.retakingamerica.com/ten_commandments_001.html]... and, not to my surprise, see that he uses the Protestant numbering. (Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:But really, the interesting question is: why are people making such a fuss about this? I have the feeling that neither side is being candid about their motivation.

:If Judge Roy Moore (or anyone else) wants to acknowledge God, he can do so with his actions and with the conduct of his life... I don't know why he needs a ton of stone to do it. If I felt that the only message people intended to send by a display of the Ten Commandments was that they personally oppose murder, adultery, profane language, and Sunday shopping, I don't think I would see any harm in it.

:On the other hand, I don't really think I really equate a public display of the Ten Commandments, with a legal requirement that, as a condition of employment, every government official and university professor must subscribe to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 7 February 2007 (EST)

== Freedom of religion ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]I have no problem with someone putting up a massive banner with the 10 Commandments on it all over their house or workplace, but you have to be prepared for your next door neighbor putting up an equally massive banner with satanic slogans on it. The USA does not have a state religion, and as such if you allow public displays of one religion's tenants you must extend that to all religions. So if you're prepared to see Islamic, Buddist, Hindu, CoS(Church of Satan), Athiest, Shamanistic and Nihilistic banners too, go ahead and put up those commandments.

:The moral values of Western culture aren't based of Satanic, Animist, and Shamanistic ideals. They are based directly off of what is described on the Ten Commandments. It's not a religious point; It's a historical one, because the entire justice system is based off of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::Unfortunately, we're still not allowed to make laws outlawing religious displays just because they're for a false religion. For soem fool reason, the Founding Fathers didn't make Christianity the State Religion of the US, so if the courts allow the 10 Commandments, they HAVE to allow everyone to put up their 'holy' laws as well. Do you want YOUR kids reading quotes from the Satanic Bible in school? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:49, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:::That might have something to do with the fact that there was not then and is not now any one religion called 'Christianity'. Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans all come readily to mind. So also do the Quakers, the Puritans. Today the number of different branches of Christianity is even greater. Which one should be the official religion of America and why? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think you missed the point of my statement; the Ten Commandments could easily be considered as historical artifacts, because of the significant impact that they have had on American society as a whole for over 2,000 years. I doubt that The Satanic Bible, The Qu'ran, etc. have had anywhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:53, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::::The second largest religion in the world is Islam. It seems that the Koran has had somewhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments - especially given that the Ten Commandments had a couple thousand years' head start to make its impact. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 16:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Western'' culture; The Qu'ran didn't have the impact on ''Western'' culture like the Bible did. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::By your reasoning then [[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']] the public schools could teach history OF the Bible. I don't think that's likely to happen. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Public schools ''can'' and ''do'' teach the ''history'' of the Bible, in ''history'' class. The curriculum I am familiar with (Washington State) has a 2-week high school freshman course on the ''history'' of Biblical times, Jesus's life, etc. As a historical, literary object, the Bible is extremely important. Just like the ten Commandments have significant historical impact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CrimesoftheLemon:

Absolutely not. It's a clear breach of the 1st Amendment.

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-17T06:11:04Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-17T06:10:09Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-17T06:08:48Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically thing of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-17T06:08:07Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically thing of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-17T06:07:36Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: [User:AustinM|AustinM], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically thing of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-17T06:01:58Z

Niwrad: /* Yes */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically thing of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-17T05:44:33Z

Niwrad: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-03-17T05:17:27Z

Niwrad: /* '''Uh...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

HELL YES! We should have nuked the communists in Russia and North Korean and Vietnam and China before they saw it coming. That would have solved everything.

Um... Communism is bad, right?

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

While I agree with the notion that communism is bad and that we should have eliminated communism in North Korea, there is more to the story than that. At that time, the U.S. government had agreed upon a policy of containment. It would have gone directly against that policy to rid North Korea of communism. But I still think we should have, given the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

[[User:David R|David]]

Reds are better dead! Let's just get it out in the open and say what we mean. The ONLY place to live is the good old USA (as long as your not black, gay, socialist, human, a free thinker, kind, mindful, smart, poor,..............

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::They don't possess a delivery system '''yet'''. Don't discount them in the brains department. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

:It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07