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

==Bible==

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

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

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

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

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

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

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

or this:

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

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

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

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

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

==Links in an article==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

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

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

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

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

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

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

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

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

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

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

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Commandment Proposal ==

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

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

2007-03-20T03:01:46Z

RightWolf2:

[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Destruction of Sodom by God]]

Sodom was an ancient city located in the Holy Lands. It was considered by bible scholars to be the sister city of another populated area known as Gommorah. Both cities were destroyed in 1898 B.C. by God according the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Biblical scholars believe the destruction of these twin cities was a statement by God concerning his views of [[Homosexuality | Sodomy and Sodomite Idolatry]] as defined in the [[Homosexuality | Old Testament]]. According the the [[Bible]], God rained burning hot [[lava]] onto the city from the sky, and killed all of the inhabitants because they practiced state sanctioned [[homosexuality | Sodomy and Sodomite Idolatry]]. The Bible also states that Lot's wife "burned in her bosom" for the ways of Sodom and was subsequently killed by God and transformed into a pillar of salt for her admiration of the [[Homosexuality | sodomite]] lifestyle practiced in the city.

==The Story of Sodom==

[http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/testimony_articles/2004-01-01][http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/copyright]
The story of [[Homosexuality | Sodom]] is often seen as a story of [[lava | destruction]] and punishment, both at the corporate and individual levels. Sodom was destroyed as was Lot's wife. The story of Sodom is also a story of salvation. It is a story about how an imperfect man, Lot, and how he was saved through faith.

We know that Sodom was a very sinful city. We know that it was destroyed because of its sinfulness. However, we are not told explicitly in Genesis what the sin of Sodom actually was. The story does tell us implicitly how the Sodomites sinned, and serves as a warning that we must not sin in the same way.

'''Sodom in Genesis'''

The first few references to Sodom are fairly neutral. We know that it was on the Canaanite border (Genesis 10:19). It was in a fertile, prosperous region (Genesis 13:10). The people of Sodom were "wicked and sinners" before God (Genesis 13:13). The King of Sodom was Bera (Genesis 14:2), and when Bera went to war with Chedorlaomer, Lot was captured. Abraham rescued Lot, and in doing so he rescued Bera and his men. He would not accept any reward for this (Genesis 14).

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 contain the most detail about Sodom. At the start of Genesis 18, three angels visit Abraham and Sarah. Abraham welcomes them into his tent. Although he does not immediately recognize them as angels, he nonetheless treats them as honored guests, feeding and making them comfortable.

After promising Abraham and Sarah a child the angels set off towards Sodom, and here we get the first indication that Sodom's days are numbered.

:''And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.'' (Genesis 18: 19, 20)

The wickedness of Sodom was already well established. The angels had not yet set foot in the city, and its sin was already considered to be very grievous. What we are seeing here is God's formal process of judgement. He did not have to send the angels to Sodom to find out how evil the city was; he already knew. God was prepared to send Jonah to Nineveh, giving the Ninevehites the chance to repent. The Sodomites were also sent messengers from God, and they also had the same chance to repent. The people of Nineveh responded, but the people of Sodom, as we will see in Genesis 19, did not.

Abraham was a man of God, and he knew what Sodom was like. He knew what the angels would find. He asked that Sodom would be spared if as few as ten righteous people were found there. God agreed: Sodom would be spared if there were even ten righteous people there.

The welcome the angels received in Sodom could hardly contrast more with the welcome they received at Abraham's tent. They were treated as honored guests by all of Abraham's household. At Sodom, the only one who welcomed them was Lot himself. Lot's wife, his daughters, and his sons in law are conspicuous by their absence. Lot's family sinned by inaction. The people of Sodom then tried to commit a terrible sin through action.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Genesis 19:4, 5)

The entire population of the city - male and female1 - surrounded Lot's house. That mob had one thing in its collective mind. They wanted to rape the visitors, exactly as the men of Gilbeah would want to rape the Levite in Judges.

Abraham had done everything he could to make the visitors welcome, even though he had never met them before. The people of Sodom wanted to take the visitors out of the comfort of Lot's care and they wanted to physically abuse them in the worst possible way.

Sometimes this incident is portrayed as sinful because of the gross inhospitality. Other times the attempted gang rape is seen as the core sin. Both points of view contain some truth. The Sodomites were inhospitable, but that inhospitality was not just a casual neglect of the visitors. It was an active attempt to harm them. The Sodomites were attempting gang rape, but they were not going to rape just anybody. They were going after two men who were on their own. Two men traveling without armed companions. Two men who, as far as they could see, had no means of defense.

There can be no doubt. The sin the men of Sodom were attempting to commit was very grievous.

The sinful nature of the city was already well established when the angels arrived. Abraham knew what the angels would find, and he knew it would lead to the destruction of the city, and that is why he pleaded that the city should be spared if there were even ten righteous people. The people of Sodom were already being described as wicked at the time of Genesis 13.

What was the sin of Sodom? What was it about Sodom that made Lot's wife look back? To answer this question we need to look at some of the later references to Sodom.

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah===

We get an indication of the nature of Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

:''Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.'' (Isaiah 1:10,11)

These words were directed at the rulers and people of Israel. Their ostentatious sacrifice was being offered in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. The people this message was directed at had distorted religion. They were worshiping God in a way he didn't want them to. The people are also compared to Sodom and Gomorrah.

They would not have been compared to Sodom if they had had nothing in common with Sodom. The issue under discussion is inappropriate worship. Isaiah 1 at the very least suggests that Sodom was also worshiping God in a distorted, unwanted, manner.

False worship is also associated with Sodom and Gomorrah in Jeremiah,

:''And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.'' (Jeremiah 23:13, 14)

The prophets of Jerusalem are said to commit adultery, walk in lies, and strengthen the hand of evildoers. This support of evildoers also features in the most important Old Testament reference to Sodom, outside of Genesis.

''See References below. The "high places" mentioned througout the Old Testament refer to the "poles of Astereth", phallic shrines used by worshipers of the Sodomite religion ([[Homosexuals | Homosexuality]]).''

===Sodom in Ezekiel===

Ezekiel tells us exactly what the sin of Sodom was.

:''Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed [[Homosexuality | abomination]] before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.'' (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

Pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor and needy, haughty, and committed [[Homosexuality | abomination.]]

This is why the sin of Sodom is a warning to us all. The sin of Sodom something unspeakable that only some people are prone to commit. The sin of Sodom was pride, materialism, haughtiness, and neglect of the poor and needy.

Consider the two angels from the point of view of the Sodomites. Here were two travelers with no means of defense. They had nowhere to sleep. The people of Sodom neglected these poor and needy travelers. Later on, the whole city works together in the attempted gang rape. There is no record of anybody apart from Lot trying to stop it. Some of the people, those at the back of the crowd, would merely have been failing to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy through their inaction. Those towards the front were actively adding their support, strengthening the hand of those at the front, those evil people who lead the lynch mob.

The Sodomites committed abomination. The Hebrew word translated abomination here is tow'ebah. In the Old Testament this word is normally used in connection with inappropriate worship. Idol worship, for example, is considered tow'ebah in Deuteronomy 7:26 and 26. Tow'ebah is used of conscious inappropriate worship. Someone who didn't know any better would not be committing tow'ebah by sacrificing to an idol. Someone who knew the law of Moses certainly would.

At the very least, the use of tow'ebah in Ezekiel 16:50 suggests that the people of Sodom did have some knowledge of God that the rejected. Ezekiel 16 is directed towards Jerusalem. If the people of Sodom had heard the word of God as the people of Jerusalem had then it is even more appropriate that Sodom and Jerusalem are considered sisters. They not only shared a knowledge of God, but they shared a rejection of God. The people of Sodom were not ignorant innocents punished by a brutal God.

===Sodom in the Gospels===

:''Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.'' (Matthew 10:9-15)

Of the five references to Sodom in the Gospels, three reinforce the connection between Sodom and inhospitality - Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11 and Luke 10:12. Hospitality - kindness to others - is a key part of Christ's teaching, and we would expect that a city destroyed for inhospitality, neglect of the poor and needy, would feature as an example.

One of the references - Matthew 11:23,24 - simply uses Sodom as an example of an iniquitous city. The final reference uses Sodom as a warning for the followers of Christ living in the last days:

:''And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.'' (Luke 17:26-30)

The days of Lot and the days of Noah had one important thing in common: the people were worldly and materialistic, and that is what people will be like before the return of Christ. Pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor and needy.
Sodom in the Rest of the New Testament

The parallels between the days of Lot, the days of Noah and the last days are used as exhortation in 2nd Peter chapter 2, verses 5 to 9:

:''And [God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished''

Just as Lot was vexed with the filthy conversation - the godless incontinent lifestyles - of those around him, the disciples of Christ will be and are vexed by the godless incontinent people in the 21st Century. To be vexed by these things is not the same as fearing that we have been abandoned by God. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly, and as he delivered Lot, so he will also deliver us.

The most puzzling reference to Sodom in the New Testament - probably the most puzzling of all Biblical references to Sodom - is found in Jude:

:''I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.'' (Jude 5 -7)

There are three groups here: "the people out of the land of Egypt", "the angels which kept not their first estate", and "Sodom and Gomorrha". The first two groups rebelled against God and were punished, so Jude supports my conclusion that Sodom and Gomorrah were not godless cities destroyed for their godlessness, but were rebellious cities destroyed for their rebellion, just as "the people out of the land of Egypt", "the angels which kept not their first estate" were punished for their rebellion.

The puzzling part of this passage is "going after strange flesh". It is possible that this is an obscure reference to the attempted rape of the angels. This would be another parallel between the days of Lot and the days of Noah (Genesis 6:1-4). Indeed, the "angels which kept not their first estate" may also be the "sons of God" described in Genesis 62.

The fate of Lot's wife is probably the most chilling aspect of the story of Sodom.

:''And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed… The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.'' (Gen 19:17-26)

Lots wife looked back, and for that transgression she was killed. When I was growing up I used to have the image of Lot and his family fleeing from Sodom with terrible sounds behind them, and Lot's wife was struck down for glancing over her shoulder, perhaps showing concern for the people she had once lived with. That is not what happened. It was not a casual glance that cost her her life. It was not a concerned glance as they were fleeing. Lots wife looked back after they had escaped. They had reached safety, saved by the hand of God. She looked back with longing, she looked back to the city where they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, and they built, but they did not concern themselves with the things of God. She had been saved from Sodom, but she did not really want to be. She snatched damnation from the jaws of salvation.

This is why Christ tells us to remember Lot's wife. Looking over your shoulder is not intrinsically sinful. Looking back with desire to a sinful, Godless lifestyle, is what we must never do.

Look at the way Christ describes it:

:''And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.'' (Luke 17:26-33)

He that was on the housetop was not to go back for his possessions. He that was in the field was to leave without his things. And the third example? Remember Lot's wife.

Do not go back for your material things, for your lifestyle, your stuff in the house. Remember Lot's wife. She was worldly, and that was her downfall.

But we must also remember Lot. Even when receiving a direct instruction from his angelic visitors, Lot hesitated and disobeyed, and he hesitated and disobeyed because of his family.

:''And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.'' (Gen 19:14-16)

== Fundamental Christian Teachings ==

Many Christians believe God's treatment of Sodom and Gommorah was an eternal statement on his views of Homosexuality. Notably, Two Angels of God visited the city and the Homosexual inhabitants attempted to rape both of them in front of Lot's home. The Angels struck the sodomites blind and provided safe passage for Lot, a servant of the Living God, from Sodom according the the Biblical account. During the journey from Sodom, Lot's wife, who turned to look back at Sodom, was killed by God for her disobediance and her yearning for her homosexual friends. Many Christians and Biblical Scholars believe the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt was a statement by God concerning his views and eventual punishment of any non-Homosexuals who endorse, sponsor, or support the Homosexual Lifestyle or agenda.

== Biblical References to [[Homosexuality | Sodomites]], [[Homosexuality | Sodomy]], and Sodom and Gommorah ==

* (Gen. 13:13)
* (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
* (Lev. 18:22),
* (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
* (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
* (Deut. 32:32,33)
* (Isa. 3:9)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (Psa. 5:5)
* (Jn. 8:44)
* (2 Pet. 2:7,8)
* (2 Pet. 2:12)
* (2 Pet. 2:22)
* (Lk. 17:28-30)
* (Rom. 1:23-28)
* (Jude 7)
* (Jude 23)
* (Rev. 22:15)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (I Timothy 4:2-4)

Sodom

2007-03-20T03:00:30Z

RightWolf2:

[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|400px|right|Destruction of Sodom by God]]

Sodom was an ancient city located in the Holy Lands. It was considered by bible scholars to be the sister city of another populated area known as Gommorah. Both cities were destroyed in 1898 B.C. by God according the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Biblical scholars believe the destruction of these twin cities was a statement by God concerning his views of [[Homosexuality | Sodomy and Sodomite Idolatry]] as defined in the [[Homosexuality | Old Testament]]. According the the [[Bible]], God rained burning hot [[lava]] onto the city from the sky, and killed all of the inhabitants because they practiced state sanctioned [[homosexuality | Sodomy and Sodomite Idolatry]]. The Bible also states that Lot's wife "burned in her bosom" for the ways of Sodom and was subsequently killed by God and transformed into a pillar of salt for her admiration of the [[Homosexuality | sodomite]] lifestyle practiced in the city.

==The Story of Sodom==

[http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/testimony_articles/2004-01-01][http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/copyright]
The story of [[Homosexuality | Sodom]] is often seen as a story of [[lava | destruction]] and punishment, both at the corporate and individual levels. Sodom was destroyed as was Lot's wife. The story of Sodom is also a story of salvation. It is a story about how an imperfect man, Lot, and how he was saved through faith.

We know that Sodom was a very sinful city. We know that it was destroyed because of its sinfulness. However, we are not told explicitly in Genesis what the sin of Sodom actually was. The story does tell us implicitly how the Sodomites sinned, and serves as a warning that we must not sin in the same way.

'''Sodom in Genesis'''

The first few references to Sodom are fairly neutral. We know that it was on the Canaanite border (Genesis 10:19). It was in a fertile, prosperous region (Genesis 13:10). The people of Sodom were "wicked and sinners" before God (Genesis 13:13). The King of Sodom was Bera (Genesis 14:2), and when Bera went to war with Chedorlaomer, Lot was captured. Abraham rescued Lot, and in doing so he rescued Bera and his men. He would not accept any reward for this (Genesis 14).

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 contain the most detail about Sodom. At the start of Genesis 18, three angels visit Abraham and Sarah. Abraham welcomes them into his tent. Although he does not immediately recognize them as angels, he nonetheless treats them as honored guests, feeding and making them comfortable.

After promising Abraham and Sarah a child the angels set off towards Sodom, and here we get the first indication that Sodom's days are numbered.

:''And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.'' (Genesis 18: 19, 20)

The wickedness of Sodom was already well established. The angels had not yet set foot in the city, and its sin was already considered to be very grievous. What we are seeing here is God's formal process of judgement. He did not have to send the angels to Sodom to find out how evil the city was; he already knew. God was prepared to send Jonah to Nineveh, giving the Ninevehites the chance to repent. The Sodomites were also sent messengers from God, and they also had the same chance to repent. The people of Nineveh responded, but the people of Sodom, as we will see in Genesis 19, did not.

Abraham was a man of God, and he knew what Sodom was like. He knew what the angels would find. He asked that Sodom would be spared if as few as ten righteous people were found there. God agreed: Sodom would be spared if there were even ten righteous people there.

The welcome the angels received in Sodom could hardly contrast more with the welcome they received at Abraham's tent. They were treated as honored guests by all of Abraham's household. At Sodom, the only one who welcomed them was Lot himself. Lot's wife, his daughters, and his sons in law are conspicuous by their absence. Lot's family sinned by inaction. The people of Sodom then tried to commit a terrible sin through action.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Genesis 19:4, 5)

The entire population of the city - male and female1 - surrounded Lot's house. That mob had one thing in its collective mind. They wanted to rape the visitors, exactly as the men of Gilbeah would want to rape the Levite in Judges.

Abraham had done everything he could to make the visitors welcome, even though he had never met them before. The people of Sodom wanted to take the visitors out of the comfort of Lot's care and they wanted to physically abuse them in the worst possible way.

Sometimes this incident is portrayed as sinful because of the gross inhospitality. Other times the attempted gang rape is seen as the core sin. Both points of view contain some truth. The Sodomites were inhospitable, but that inhospitality was not just a casual neglect of the visitors. It was an active attempt to harm them. The Sodomites were attempting gang rape, but they were not going to rape just anybody. They were going after two men who were on their own. Two men traveling without armed companions. Two men who, as far as they could see, had no means of defense.

There can be no doubt. The sin the men of Sodom were attempting to commit was very grievous.

The sinful nature of the city was already well established when the angels arrived. Abraham knew what the angels would find, and he knew it would lead to the destruction of the city, and that is why he pleaded that the city should be spared if there were even ten righteous people. The people of Sodom were already being described as wicked at the time of Genesis 13.

What was the sin of Sodom? What was it about Sodom that made Lot's wife look back? To answer this question we need to look at some of the later references to Sodom.

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah===

We get an indication of the nature of Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

:''Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.'' (Isaiah 1:10,11)

These words were directed at the rulers and people of Israel. Their ostentatious sacrifice was being offered in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. The people this message was directed at had distorted religion. They were worshiping God in a way he didn't want them to. The people are also compared to Sodom and Gomorrah.

They would not have been compared to Sodom if they had had nothing in common with Sodom. The issue under discussion is inappropriate worship. Isaiah 1 at the very least suggests that Sodom was also worshiping God in a distorted, unwanted, manner.

False worship is also associated with Sodom and Gomorrah in Jeremiah,

:''And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.'' (Jeremiah 23:13, 14)

The prophets of Jerusalem are said to commit adultery, walk in lies, and strengthen the hand of evildoers. This support of evildoers also features in the most important Old Testament reference to Sodom, outside of Genesis.

''See References below. The "high places" mentioned througout the Old Testament refer to the "poles of Astereth", phallic shrines used by worshipers of the Sodomite religion ([[Homosexuals | Homosexuality]]).''

===Sodom in Ezekiel===

Ezekiel tells us exactly what the sin of Sodom was.

:''Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed [[Homosexuality | abomination]] before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.'' (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

Pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor and needy, haughty, and committed [[Homosexuality | abomination.]]

This is why the sin of Sodom is a warning to us all. The sin of Sodom something unspeakable that only some people are prone to commit. The sin of Sodom was pride, materialism, haughtiness, and neglect of the poor and needy.

Consider the two angels from the point of view of the Sodomites. Here were two travelers with no means of defense. They had nowhere to sleep. The people of Sodom neglected these poor and needy travelers. Later on, the whole city works together in the attempted gang rape. There is no record of anybody apart from Lot trying to stop it. Some of the people, those at the back of the crowd, would merely have been failing to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy through their inaction. Those towards the front were actively adding their support, strengthening the hand of those at the front, those evil people who lead the lynch mob.

The Sodomites committed abomination. The Hebrew word translated abomination here is tow'ebah. In the Old Testament this word is normally used in connection with inappropriate worship. Idol worship, for example, is considered tow'ebah in Deuteronomy 7:26 and 26. Tow'ebah is used of conscious inappropriate worship. Someone who didn't know any better would not be committing tow'ebah by sacrificing to an idol. Someone who knew the law of Moses certainly would.

At the very least, the use of tow'ebah in Ezekiel 16:50 suggests that the people of Sodom did have some knowledge of God that the rejected. Ezekiel 16 is directed towards Jerusalem. If the people of Sodom had heard the word of God as the people of Jerusalem had then it is even more appropriate that Sodom and Jerusalem are considered sisters. They not only shared a knowledge of God, but they shared a rejection of God. The people of Sodom were not ignorant innocents punished by a brutal God.

===Sodom in the Gospels===

:''Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.'' (Matthew 10:9-15)

Of the five references to Sodom in the Gospels, three reinforce the connection between Sodom and inhospitality - Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11 and Luke 10:12. Hospitality - kindness to others - is a key part of Christ's teaching, and we would expect that a city destroyed for inhospitality, neglect of the poor and needy, would feature as an example.

One of the references - Matthew 11:23,24 - simply uses Sodom as an example of an iniquitous city. The final reference uses Sodom as a warning for the followers of Christ living in the last days:

:''And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.'' (Luke 17:26-30)

The days of Lot and the days of Noah had one important thing in common: the people were worldly and materialistic, and that is what people will be like before the return of Christ. Pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor and needy.
Sodom in the Rest of the New Testament

The parallels between the days of Lot, the days of Noah and the last days are used as exhortation in 2nd Peter chapter 2, verses 5 to 9:

:''And [God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished''

Just as Lot was vexed with the filthy conversation - the godless incontinent lifestyles - of those around him, the disciples of Christ will be and are vexed by the godless incontinent people in the 21st Century. To be vexed by these things is not the same as fearing that we have been abandoned by God. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly, and as he delivered Lot, so he will also deliver us.

The most puzzling reference to Sodom in the New Testament - probably the most puzzling of all Biblical references to Sodom - is found in Jude:

:''I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.'' (Jude 5 -7)

There are three groups here: "the people out of the land of Egypt", "the angels which kept not their first estate", and "Sodom and Gomorrha". The first two groups rebelled against God and were punished, so Jude supports my conclusion that Sodom and Gomorrah were not godless cities destroyed for their godlessness, but were rebellious cities destroyed for their rebellion, just as "the people out of the land of Egypt", "the angels which kept not their first estate" were punished for their rebellion.

The puzzling part of this passage is "going after strange flesh". It is possible that this is an obscure reference to the attempted rape of the angels. This would be another parallel between the days of Lot and the days of Noah (Genesis 6:1-4). Indeed, the "angels which kept not their first estate" may also be the "sons of God" described in Genesis 62.

The fate of Lot's wife is probably the most chilling aspect of the story of Sodom.

:''And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed… The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.'' (Gen 19:17-26)

Lots wife looked back, and for that transgression she was killed. When I was growing up I used to have the image of Lot and his family fleeing from Sodom with terrible sounds behind them, and Lot's wife was struck down for glancing over her shoulder, perhaps showing concern for the people she had once lived with. That is not what happened. It was not a casual glance that cost her her life. It was not a concerned glance as they were fleeing. Lots wife looked back after they had escaped. They had reached safety, saved by the hand of God. She looked back with longing, she looked back to the city where they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, and they built, but they did not concern themselves with the things of God. She had been saved from Sodom, but she did not really want to be. She snatched damnation from the jaws of salvation.

This is why Christ tells us to remember Lot's wife. Looking over your shoulder is not intrinsically sinful. Looking back with desire to a sinful, Godless lifestyle, is what we must never do.

Look at the way Christ describes it:

:''And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.'' (Luke 17:26-33)

He that was on the housetop was not to go back for his possessions. He that was in the field was to leave without his things. And the third example? Remember Lot's wife.

Do not go back for your material things, for your lifestyle, your stuff in the house. Remember Lot's wife. She was worldly, and that was her downfall.

But we must also remember Lot. Even when receiving a direct instruction from his angelic visitors, Lot hesitated and disobeyed, and he hesitated and disobeyed because of his family.

:''And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.'' (Gen 19:14-16)

== Fundamental Christian Teachings ==

Many Christians believe God's treatment of Sodom and Gommorah was an eternal statement on his views of Homosexuality. Notably, Two Angels of God visited the city and the Homosexual inhabitants attempted to rape both of them in front of Lot's home. The Angels struck the sodomites blind and provided safe passage for Lot, a servant of the Living God, from Sodom according the the Biblical account. During the journey from Sodom, Lot's wife, who turned to look back at Sodom, was killed by God for her disobediance and her yearning for her homosexual friends. Many Christians and Biblical Scholars believe the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt was a statement by God concerning his views and eventual punishment of any non-Homosexuals who endorse, sponsor, or support the Homosexual Lifestyle or agenda.

== Biblical References to [[Homosexuality | Sodomites]], [[Homosexuality | Sodomy]], and Sodom and Gommorah ==

* (Gen. 13:13)
* (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
* (Lev. 18:22),
* (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
* (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
* (Deut. 32:32,33)
* (Isa. 3:9)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (Psa. 5:5)
* (Jn. 8:44)
* (2 Pet. 2:7,8)
* (2 Pet. 2:12)
* (2 Pet. 2:22)
* (Lk. 17:28-30)
* (Rom. 1:23-28)
* (Jude 7)
* (Jude 23)
* (Rev. 22:15)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (I Timothy 4:2-4)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-20T02:16:10Z

RightWolf2: /* Liberal Edits by Jack */

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-19T17:01:16Z

RightWolf2: /* Discussion of subject */

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-03-19T16:58:45Z

RightWolf2: /* Eliminate this Hate */

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-19T07:03:01Z

RightWolf2: /* Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors */

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ake Green

2007-03-19T06:42:40Z

RightWolf2:

'''Åke Green''' born 3 June 1941 is a Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech for preaching a sermon in his own church to his own congregation that condmened homosexuality as "a cancer on society". Green was indicted on charges of "hate speech" for preaching God's holy scriptures to fellow believers in his church and sent to prison.

On February 11, 2005 a Swedish appeals court, ''Göta hovrätt'', overturned the conviction and acquitted Åke Green as a result of international pressure and negative publicity. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General of Sweden appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Sweden, which on November 29 acquitted him as well.

In their opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the pro-homosexual Swedish Law used to prosecute Green violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

== Homosexual Activists lobby for Swedish "hate speech" Law ==

In 2002, the Swedish parliament, as a result of lobbying activities from the militant Swedish Gay Rights Movement, included homosexuals in a list of groups protected from "expressions of disdain". The list appears in a section of Swedish criminal law (''Brottsbalken'') known as The Act on Persecution of Minority Groups (''Lagen om hets mot folkgrupp'').

== Ake Green's Sermon ==

At his church in Borgholm, Green delivered a sermon in which he described homosexuality as:

'' ... abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society," ... homosexuals [are] perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God. ... A person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time... homosexuality is chosen, not inborn, and everybody can be set free and delivered...''

Many fundamental Christians believe Ake Green to be a martyr for his faith, and applaud his courage and testimony. Green's arrest and imprisonment created a global outcry among fundamental Christians against homosexual oppression of freedom of religion and freedom of speech for religious leaders who dennounce homosexual behavior as sinful and contrary to God's teachings.

== References ==

*[http://www.akegreen.com/ Ake Green Website]
*[http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx CBN News Swedish Paster Jailed for Preaching from the Bible]
*[http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/ake_green_sermon.htm Ake Green's Sermon on Homosexuality]
*[http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html Green sentenced to prison for preaching God's Word]
*[http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/93.html Pastor Jailed for preaching against homosexuality]
*[http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040907aa.asp English translation of the sermon]
*[http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/2005/Dom%20pa%20engelska%20B%201050-05.pdf Judgment of the Supreme Court (translated to English from Swedish)]

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-03-19T06:32:44Z

RightWolf2: /* Eliminate this Hate */

Wikipedia

2007-03-14T23:25:16Z

RightWolf2: rv edits of liberal gay rights activist pushing liberal POV into conservapedia articles

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Conservapedia has an article that argues that Wikipedia has a [[liberal]] bias. [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|This list]] shows some examples of this alleged bias.

==Wikipedia and Homosexuality==

Of the approximately 3 million people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts<ref>About 3 million; see [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia's Statistics page]</ref> 226 (as of 14th March 2007<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality Wikipedians by Sexuality]</ref>) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual. It must be noted however, that not ever member has given an answer so the actual figure may be much higher. The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]. The materials collected by Wikipedia Watch from Wikipedia chat rooms and other sources contain a large body of supporting documentation about Wikipedia. Wikipedia Watch is a conservative website that catalogs the actual identities of Wikipedia editors and leaders.

Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.

==Criticism==

The site also publishes images with many of these articles which are not suitable for young people and border on pornographic material. Wikipedia specifically claims to be an "open and liberal" site and recommends adult only subscribers to its content.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

2007-03-14T21:03:37Z

RightWolf2: /* Dpbsmith */

2007-03-14T18:26:06Z

RightWolf2: /* Wikipedia and Homosexuality */

Wikipedia

2007-03-14T18:24:18Z

RightWolf2: remove ambiguous term "gay" which referes to happy with succinct description of homosexuals