Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-03-18T18:05:11Z

Qc: /* Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-03-18T02:56:49Z

Qc: /* Please expand on meaning of "verifiable" */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1

2008-03-18T02:20:13Z

Qc: /* Please expand on meaning of "verifiable" */

==BC/AD, BCE/CE Debate==
Go back to The Conservapedia Commandments [[Talk:The Conservapedia Commandments|talk]] page

CE and BCE are not "anti-Christian." They are merely '''not''' Christian.

In point of fact, AD and BC are just counts from an arbitrary starting point. They do not measure years relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in 4 BC.

AD and BC reflect an historical tradition in the part of the world once known as "Christendom." England no longer has an established church and the United States never had one. To some Christians, they are a pleasant tradition that reminds them of the special status Christianity once enjoyed. There's no reason for people who like them not to use them.
: 'England no longer has an established church'? Last time I checked, the Church of England, with Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Regina Deo Gratia, was alive and kicking. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

And if the people running Conservapedia prefer them, fine. It is a matter of preference, and you're entitled to honor your own preferences on your own site.

That's no reason to label CE and BCE as "anti-Christian." They're just neutral, that's all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:43, 19 December 2006 (EST)

First of all, thank you Dpbsmith for your polite and thoughtful postings, which have usually conformed to the simple rules here. I've enjoyed several of your edits very much, such as the one about the Nicene Creed.

:Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:42, 19 December 2006 (EST)

In response to your comment above, CE and BCE are "anti-Christian" just as calling President Bush by some other title would be "anti-Bush". It's a fact that our dates are based on the birth of Jesus. We have a recent entry explaining the small error that you mention above, which does not change the undisputed fact that Jesus's birth is the source of the dating.

People may not like Jesus, but it's anti-Jesus and anti-Christian to deny the basis for our calendar dates. Anti-Christians are free to invent their own dating system, but if they use 1492 after the approximate birth of Christ then it's anti-Christian to deny what that 1492 means. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 19 December 2006 (EST)

P.S. The entry explaining the dating error is [[Dionysis the Little]] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 19 December 2006 (EST)

:'''Reply''' Although America has no established church, Christianity plays a huge roll in our longstanding culture. e.g. '''''Christ'''''mas and Easter, BC and AD. It is against these Christian roots that modern-day political correctness is fighting, against established traits of america such as "Under God" in the pledge of allegence and "In God We Trust" on our money. To replace AD and BC with something else is decidedly anti-Christian

[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

::You can make out a case for America's roots being ''theist'' or ''deist'' or something of that sort. Our money indeed says "In God We Trust."

::What it does '''not''' say is ''IHS'' or ''In Hoc Signo Vinces,'' and with all the various symbols on various coins and bills you will not find a cross or a fish. The flag of the U. S. bears no religious symbols. The Declaration of Independence makes reference to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and "the Creator," but not to Christ or Christianity. The Constitution does not mention God at all, in any way, and mentions religion only to say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Pledge of Allegiance originally did not mention God at all; at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, the words "under God" were added, but notice that even the Knights of Columbus did not suggest adding anything about Christianity to the pledge.

::Christianity is certainly '''part''' of the cultural heritage and tradition of the United States. And as far as that goes, AD and BC are widely used in public documents. CE and BCE are generally used in academic contexts, by historians. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is currently, but I believe it's the same as for U. S. versus British spelling: there's no overall rule; it's whatever is used by the editors who first bring the article up to reasonable length. The only rule is not to ''change'' the usage in an established article. I think that's right, but it's not anything I need to know much about so I haven't double-checked the relevant policies lately.

::Actually, yeah, the policy is just what I just said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras

::Anyone who goes around changing BC/AD to BCE/CE en masse is just as much of a jerk as anyone who does the reverse.

:::'''Reply''': You say above that "What it does '''not''' say is ''IHS'' or ''In Hoc Signo Vinces''" But in reality ''IHS'' was a symbol of the knights templar and '''not''' Christianity.
--[[User:ChrisS|The Unknown One]] 19:48, 21 December 2006 (EST)

::There's no reason why this any of this should be a big deal. Getting along with good-faith editors who disagree with you should be a lot easier than loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you.

::And as a practical matter, in terms of influencing the behavior of those who come to edit Conservapedia, I really doubt that it would make much difference in what people will actually do if you were to say

:::In Conservapedia, please use BC and AD when indicating the era of a date.

::or

:::As a Christian site, Conservapedia prefers BC and AD, rather than BCE and CE which it regards as non-Christian

::rather than

:::When referencing to dates, you must use BC and AD not CE and BCE, which are anti-Christian.

::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

:::Reply: Dpbsmith, you make some interesting points, and I considered agreeing with your suggestion to change the Commandments. But I still feel that BCE and CE deny the factual meaning of the date. Other dating systems are welcome to non-Christians. But dates that use the Christian calendar should give credit where it is due. That's true whether someone is a Christian or not. If I used a Buddhist date then I would acknowledge that.

:::The Commandments are all written as commands. So while softer language may be more polite or politically correct, it is refreshing when someone directly says what he means. "You must use ..." on this site is clear and accurate.

:::Wikipedia, like the French Revolution, has become dominated by hostility to Christianity. So while its policy may appear to be egalitarian, in practice it is anything but. Wikipedia policies permit selective enforcement of complex rules.

:::You might check out my recent entry on [[Creation]].

:::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 20 December 2006 (EST)

::::Thanks for listening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:55, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:::::Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken. Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows: 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.

:::::Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I like this wording. It does not sound as negative as the last one yet still makes a strong point.

[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

I propose changing to the following wording.

When referencing any date, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.

I think the current wording "When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus" Leaves a loophole for people to reference dates in other ways.
All dates should be in B.C./A.D. Format.

[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]]

:I don't know, Tim. I think your version lacks the full explanation of mine. Some other calendar dating systems may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as which Chinese year we are in now. I don't feel strongly about it, however. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

::You need to make the statement clear, which I believe it is now, not to close every loophole that an ingenious mischief-maker could crawl through.

::If someone reads what is there now and then goes ahead and uses something other than B. C. or A. D., it's not because the instructions weren't clear. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:58, 22 December 2006 (EST)

==American Spelling of Words==

I think we should add as a new commandment that you have to do the American spelling of words. I'm pretty sure it used to be on the homepage, but it must have been removed...I can't find it. What do you guys think? [[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]
*I agree. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:16, 11 January 2007 (EST)
**Why bother? You would alienate conservatives who are from Europe. And I am a little biased here because I use British spelling all the time. =D -- [[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*** Because we are an American encyclopedia...not British. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:49, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****Point: We are an online encyclopedia which can go all over the world, including England. And if a British man had a good point that he put up on the site but used his own spelling, would we ban him? After all, he would be "breaking the Conservapedia Commandments." I just don't think making people spell things the American way should be in the rulebook. (People on this site often make spelling errors anyway)--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*****If a British guy starts using British spellings we warn him to stop... if he continues... we would block him. If people refuse to respect our rules they can go elsewhere. PS. Sorry for editing your post... I'm just trying to keep things organized. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****** British and American are basically the same thing. We should encourage people to use the American spelling but it is ridiculous to "block" them...After all, American is just butchered English --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We are not debating the issue of blocking someone for disobeying a rule (which is something we have reserved the right to do), we're debating adding an "American spellings" rule. The fact is that were an American encyclopedia so we should remain patriotic and use the American spellings for words. We can't just say that Conservapedia "encourages" or "recommends" this, because we can't enforce that. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We ''are'' talking about blocking people because when someone breaks a "Commandment", they get warned and then [perhaps] blocked... Well, I understand that this is an American encyclopedia, but realistically, it seems like such a small thing to actually create an enforceable rule about and you may unintentionally wind up alienating people who wish to contribute to the page, people who are American but do spell things the British way without realizing it (people of older generations for example who were taught that way in Catholic grammar school) If the majority of people want an official rule about this, then that's fine but who is going to go through the entire conservapedia to enforce this?? It will be a monumental task, in my opinion, as you would have to go entry by entry every single week to ensure that this commandment wasn't being violated. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******If we make a rule about it people will be more likely to use the American spellings. Obviously we will not block specific people without ample warning. We will not have to patrol the pages day and night to make sure... just whenever someone does an edit post on their user page a reference to the rule and they'll stop. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:07, 19 January 2007 (EST)
*******It appears that you are missing my point. If you make a rule about it, people will ''have'' to use the American spelling, (not be 'more likely' to) which is unfair, as many people on this site cannot even spell normally. But hey! I am sure that you all have a just reason to make such a petty rule. (Oh, right; "We're American". The homepage doesn't really state that we're American anyway)I'm sure that I am unpatriotic because I spell "favorite" like our Founding Fathers did with a 'U' ... like a Brit. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 08:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)
********By the way... is everyone aware that most of the differences between U. S. and British spelling are the direct personal work of none other than [[Noah Webster]]? U. S. schools used British books, and Webster thought Americans should learn from American books. He published spelling books and dictionaries that were widely adopted, and over the years he gradually changed the spelling, dropping the "u" from "color" and "honor," changing the order of the "r" and "e" in "center," and so forth... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I suggest that when anyone notices a British spelling, they should just change it to the U. S. spelling, with an edit comment like "per Conservapedia style." I think British contributors will get the idea. Brits who are familiar and comfortable with U. S. spellings can do so, those who aren't should just do their best and let others copyedit their work.

On a cooperative project, one has to be prepared to do a certain amount of cleaning up after others.

When a U. S. author is published in England or vice versa, nobody expects the ''author'' to rewrite their book in the other national style. The publisher does that for the author as part of the publishing process.

If Conservapedia's stylesheet mandates U. S. spellings, then contributors who use British spelling shouldn't object to having their work copyedited to use U. S. spellings.

Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Well said Dpbsmith. I guess it would just be best to make a "Conservapedia requests" rule for this... instead of a command. What do you guys think? Thanks. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:47, 19 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)

**Yes, editing is fine, if you so wish it. But making a big rule about it is not necessary, as I've been saying. Dpbsmith has an excellent point. (Had to put my opinion in again) --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:17, 19 January 2007 (EST)

** I suggest posting a commandment like "As far as is possible, american spelling of words will be used" and specify that people will not be blocked for violation of this one unless they start changing things away from american spellings, or are clearly deliberatly ignoring that rule. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 19 January 2007 (EST)

***Seems to makes sense, Tim. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:07, 20 January 2007 (EST)

'''Comment:''' I agree with Tim on this one; though we may not block people unless they are obviously disregarding the rule, we should definately have it on the rule page.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)

==Citing Sources==
I think we should have a rule that citations are needed wherever possible. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 09:09, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*We already do. Rule 2 says: "Cite your sources as much as possible". ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 09:11, 29 January 2007 (EST)

** OOps, Didn't notice. Maybe we should change it to "Always cite your sources" because nobody is citing anything right now unless there is debate about the subject. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 09:16, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*That would be better. This will probably be another commandment that is more of a guideline, as it is rather difficult to enforce. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 09:21, 29 January 2007 (EST)

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

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

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

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

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

2008-03-09T23:09:21Z

Qc: /* What liberal edits? */

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive2|Archive2]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive3|Archive3]]

== Awesome Breaking News ==

Awesome Breaking News items!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 19 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Andy! Being able to post News items is one of the most fun things about being an administrator on Conservapedia. When I used to suggest news items on [[Wikipedia]], they discouraged me and called me a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crocoite#Posting_Fox_News_pieces_into_Talk_pages troll]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:48, 19 February 2008 (EST)

== You are the best Breaking News editor! ==

Crocoite, you are the best headline editor! Your story about the [[miracle]] baby brought a tear to my eye. Please keep that as the top story for at least several hours. Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:20, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Andy! Will do. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Another terrific headline, Crocoite! Hope you don't mind that I altered and elevated it a bit ...--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Andy!. No, I don't mind it when you improve my news headlines ... in fact, I encourage you to make them even better. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 09:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== Headlines ==

Once again, Crocoite, you have shown why you are the best at writing the headline stories here! Thank you, I really enjoy reading -- and reflecting on -- your breaking news!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Andy! I really enjoy finding these stories and linking them to our Conservapedia articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 09:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Great Block! ==

Great block this Sunday morning, Crocoite!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Andy! These vandals are just wasting their time. I look at this vandalism as a form of persecution. I believe this scripture applies here: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:10). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:00, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:: Amen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

==News Item==
Crocoite, I saw [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7273407.stm this] on the BBC website and thought it was worthy of a front page flash. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:31, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:Done. Brian, thanks for the link and suggestion. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Wow, what a great news item: 70% say the news media is out of touch with their needs! Your stuff is always insightful, Crocoite!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Andy! I especially like linking the news items to our Conservapedia articles. The fun continues. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==KarlJaeger==
Thanks for the help there! [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 16:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)
... And for moving above comment to the right page... *sigh*, I'll get the hang of this one day... [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 17:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:Sure. I hope to see some positive contributions. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:05, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== What liberal edits? ==

I am only removing unsubstantiated claims? What is liberal about that? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:09, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DeanS

2008-03-09T23:09:13Z

Qc: What liberal edits?

Muhammad

2008-03-09T23:08:05Z

Qc:

== Life of Muhammad==
The Prophet Muhammad (A.D. 570-632) or Mohammed, was the founder of Islam. He began life as a wealthy tradesmen, one of the elite of his city of [[Mecca]]. He claimed to be privy to certain [[revelations]] in the early middle ages, speaking of a need to abandon polygamy, and worship the one God, [[Allah]]. Mohammad is generally accepted to be the world's first terrorist.

These early revelations spoke of a need to return to the [[monotheism]] of [[Abraham]]; in this way, at an early age, Muhammad saw himself as reviving an ancient faith, a perceived correction to [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], and restoring his people to what he saw as their rightful position as the true founders and heirs of monotheism. In these revelations, submission to the will of God - [[Allah]] - was critical. Muhammad's fledgling religion continued to develop throughout his life, through periodic revelations often relating directly to events currently facing his new faith.

The faith caught on slowly, winning only a few converts in Mecca (the first being his wife, Khadija). In 622 A.D, under increased pressure and ostracism from elders in Mecca, Muhammad began the [[hijra]], an organized exodus of his followers from Mecca to the city of [[Medina]]. [[Muslims]] date the formation of their religion to the ''hijra'' itself, even beginning their dating system at this point.

At Medina, the new Muslims immediately adopted an aggressive stance, seeking to coexist with the [[Jews]] living in Medina on ''his'' terms. The encounter ended badly, though, with Muhammad dividing and conquering the Jewish groups in Medina, ordering the massacre of the [[Qurayza]] [[Jewish]] tribe, as they refused changing their [[religion]] to his submission, after (possibly) fabricating a cause to break what is called by modern historians the [[Compact of Medina]].<ref>Berkey, ''The Formation of Islam''</ref> It is important to note however that Muhammad offered mercy to the tribe many times, but they fought on to the end. <ref>Karen Armstrong, ''A short history of Islam''</ref>

A controversial point of Muhammad's life was his marriage to [[Aisha bint Abi Bakr|Aisha]], daughter of [[Abu Bakr]], who was six years old at the time of marriage.<ref>''Sahih Bukhari'' 5:58:234</ref><ref>Sahih Muslim 8:3311</ref> The marriage was consumated when Aisha was nine.<ref> D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40</ref> The narratives describing her age at marriage as six are narrated by Aisha herself. Though Aisha was known to use numerical substitution in other hadith, such as in the hadith of Laylat Al-Qadr where she substituted 1 for 21 and 3 for 23, which is a common way of referencing numbers in Arabic when the base number is established. Some scholars argue that she could have been speaking in such numerical substitution when narrating the Hadith regarding her age at marriage, thus rendering 16 as 6 and 19 as 9.<ref>Hakim Niaz Ahmad, '' تحقیق عمرعا،شہ صدیقہ (Research on the age of Ayesha)'', Mashkoor Academy, [[Karachi]].</ref> There is additional disagreement over her age at marriage, and a number of Islamic scholars believe that Aisha was older at the time of marriage. However, it is worth noting that at the time, and for thousands of years before and hundreds of years after, early marriage of a girl to a powerful man was very common. Aisha reached puberty at the age of nine, which is when the marriage was consummated.<ref>495|525|58,495,10,66,675,15,76,735,45,66,870,15|-1|0</ref><ref>Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, ''[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Age_of_Aisha Age of Aisha]'', Al-Rahman Publishing Trust, [[Karachi]]</ref><ref>Maulana Muhammad Ali, ''The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad'', p. 30, 1992, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat, ISBN 0-913321-19-2</ref>

== After Muhammad's Death ==

Muhammad's death at an early age caused the splintering of his religion into new sects, over the question of succession. The groups called themselves the [[Sunnis]] and the [[Shiite|Shi'as]]. Many attribute this split to the high degree to which authority was centered in the powerful character of Muhammad himself: without his powerful personality, the movement could not survive intact.<ref>[[Bernard Lewis]], ''What Went Wrong''</ref>

The failure or splintering of movements built around a charismatic leader is a recurring sociological problem, often studied by psychologists, and referred to as the problem of the [[routinization of charisma]]. [[Christianity]] faced the same problem, and many attribute the conquest of this problem to the leadership of the apostle [[Paul]].<ref>Maximillian Weber, ''Theory of Social and Economic Organization,'' in the chapter "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization," see also Len Oakes, "Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities"</ref>.

In accordance with the Islamic [[hadith]], it is considered proper to add an honorary phrase of "Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH)" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam (or SAW)".

==See Also==
*[[Islam]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>

== Notes ==

HIR | Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah [http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religious people]]

Hollywood

2008-03-09T23:01:59Z

Qc:

'''Hollywood''' is a neighborhood located in the city of [[Los Angeles]], [[California]]. As a lexical entry, it refers to the movie studios once located in the district, and now generally refers to the entertainment industry based on Southern California.

== See also ==

*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Three Stooges]]
*[[Salma Hayek]]
*[[Marilyn Monroe]]

[[category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Cinema]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-03-09T22:57:29Z

2008-03-09T20:57:29Z

Qc: Sea to sea not from the bible

==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==

Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not "An American Site". This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== About Canada ==

This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana ==

On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada's Response to SARS ==

Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness. In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario. In fact, no real diagnosis of a "syndrome" can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms. Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made. The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.

During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness. At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.

The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system. While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.

:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The Sars section should be removed. It is one of the least relevant things about Canada or even Toronto. It's not topical. I'm sure even Torontonians have forgoten about it.

==Top 10 places to live in the world==

We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human Trafficking ==

I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness in this entry ==

Why is it that most of the recent changes in this article have been people adding foolishness, malarkey, and drivel? That people like Crocoite, TK, Fox, Karajou, and RobS have had to devote so much time to repairing this article (and kudos to them for doing so) is particularly frustrating when you consider that there are still no entries for the NWT, Nunavut and most of the provincial capitals. As well, most of the articles about the provinces are quite minimal and need to be augmented. In addition, there is virtually no mention on Canada's significant contributions to WWI and WWII in those articles. There is lots of work to be done here so if you are thinking of vandalizing an entry out of boredom or a desire to see your name in print, why not channel that energy into posting something productive?
--[[User:Regulas|Regulas]] 07:57, 6 June 2007

:Excellent comment Regulas. From your entry above, it appears you could make a significant contribution to this article and I encourage you to do so. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 10:24, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== previously reverted edits ==

I was curious: I am a Canadian, and so I thought it might be interesting to read this article. I came across a small problem, being from Montreal. I noticed that the article accuses Canada of having lower standards of education indirectly, quoting McGill's grading scheme - which happens to be unusual in Canada. Most of the schools in Canada follow a grading system identical to or similar to the U.S. system (which is not cited), and McGill also does not pass a student with a D, which makes the effective failing grade 54%, which is minimally different from the U.S.'s 59%. I recommend that this particular passage be removed, as it is highly misleading. May I remove it? I do not want to be accused of vandalism or of arbitrarily removing information. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 23:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...I don't think you actually have to walk on eggs so gingerly, Nihiltres! Please make common sense edits, and cite your material properly, and there won't be a problem. ''If there is, please let me know.'' I do suggest, coming from a family that has many teachers, that 54% verses 59% isn't what any teacher would call minimal. In that 5% of difference are how many students? I am merely trying to point out things that people take for granted saying on WP, won't skate here, in our Conservative world. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I'm sure that there's good reason to make the change, just I'm not sure how to find a source for what would seem to be a norm - people do not usually write news reports saying that "life is normal." I'll try to find a couple of sources for the correction, perhaps using the grading schemes of other schools. As for walking on eggs, I plan to do that while here - offending Conservapedians is the last thing that I want, as it reinforces negative feelings where cooperation and friendliness might otherwise reign. I think that if Conservapedians want a problem on Wikipedia fixed, commenting on the talk page with a courteous explanation of the problem might prove effective at solving many problems of bias or correcting factual inaccuracies. The [[Golden Rule]] is what I have in mind here. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 11:07, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

There actually is no "Canadian grading system" because, as the article points out, education is a provincial responsibility. In fact it varies among institutions within individual provinces. Generally speaking, institutions with lower grades required to pass have higher marking standards. An example is that passing grades at community colleges are usually higher than at universities. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:02, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sea to sea not from the bible ==

In none of the references of this article is it claimed the origin of the expression "sea to sea" is grounded in the bible, thus I have modified this line.

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") [1]"

to be

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"

[[User:Qc|Qc]] 16:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:God

2008-03-09T20:48:12Z

Qc: Breach of commandments?

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?