Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-23T00:50:51Z

O2mcgovem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Gossip==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Bias==

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

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

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

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

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

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Neutral to the facts? ==

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

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

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-21T23:41:47Z

O2mcgovem: /* Neutral? Censorship? */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Gossip==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Bias==

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

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

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

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

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

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

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

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-21T23:39:32Z

O2mcgovem: Neutral? Censorship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Gossip==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Bias==

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

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

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

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia."''

I find it comical that you think this encyclopaedia is neutral. Conservapedia is anything but neutral. I was going to create/edit a few articles according to the commandments, but as I was looking through various articles I noticed that they all seem to be biased towards one point of view. I will try and help the encyclopedia, respecting the rules and opinions here, but it seems to be quite hard to write from a point of view that you don't necessarily agree with rather than a neutral point of view.

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

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

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

Conservapedia talk:General disclaimer

2007-03-21T23:22:09Z

O2mcgovem:

== No Disclaimer? ==

I don't get it. If this site is, and [[Conservapedia:About|I quote]], "one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind", why does it have that "not-complete" feel to it. I thought it was just the articles at first... but this is a project page for heaven's sake!

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

Conservapedia talk:General disclaimer

2007-03-21T23:21:56Z

O2mcgovem:

== No Disclaimer? ==

I don't get it. If this site is, and [[Conservapedia:AboutZI quote]], "one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind", why does it have that "not-complete" feel to it. I thought it was just the articles at first... but this is a project page for heaven's sake!

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

Conservapedia talk:General disclaimer

2007-03-21T23:21:26Z

O2mcgovem: No Disclaimer?

== No Disclaimer? ==

I don't get it. If this site is, and [[I quote|Conservapedia:About]], "one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind", why does it have that "not-complete" feel to it. I thought it was just the articles at first... but this is a project page for heaven's sake!

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

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-03-21T23:17:46Z

O2mcgovem:

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

St. Thomas Aquinas

2007-03-21T23:08:06Z

O2mcgovem:

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a [[Dominican]] monk that wrote [[Summa Theologica]]. Many consider this to be the most perfect and complete summary of Christian theology, and he established an entire type of Christian philosophy known as "Thomism", which is followed to this day. Aquinas was somewhat controversial during his life, but was quickly revered by the [[Catholic Church]] after his death. Many of the controversies surrounding Aquinas stem from his synthesis of Aristotlean philosophy with Christian philosophy, causing him to break with many of the traditionally held philosophical and theological positions espoused by the dominant Augustinian synthesis of Neoplatonic philosophy and Christianity. He developed five proofs for the existence of [[God]] using logic. The first three were "cosmological" proofs rather than the "ontological" approach of [[St. Anselm]]. A cosmological proof deals with the natural order of the universe. Aquinas' most famous cosmological argument was that whatever is in motion (for example, us) must have been put in motion by something else (our parents). They, in turn, must have been put in motion by something else (their parents). But this sequence cannot go on to infinity. There must have been a first mover. This we call "[[God]]".

St. Thomas Aquinas' views on the nature of man included an incomplete interpretation of the Fall of Man. He believed that while men had rebelled against [[God]] and the human will was fallen, the human intellect remained perfect. Therefore, human wisdom could be relied upon and given as much prominence as the teachings of the [[Bible]]. This idea justified mixing the works of the classical, secular philosophers into Christian theology. Also as a result, the authority of the Church became as important, if not more so, than that of the [[Bible]]. These ideas set the stage for humanism, which was the predominant philosophy of the [[Renaissance]].

Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas found that the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five positive statements about the divine qualities:

*1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
*2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
*3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
*4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
*5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

St. Thomas Aquinas is further known for his famous observation that the [[Devil]] cannot withstand mockery. Mockery can be useful in defeating a bad idea, temptation or people in this world who really annoy you.

UK

2007-03-20T22:05:19Z

O2mcgovem: Redirecting to The United Kingdom

#REDIRECT [[The United Kingdom]]

UK

2007-03-20T22:04:57Z

O2mcgovem: Redirecting to United Kingdom

#REDIRECT [[United Kingdom]]