User talk:Cоnservative

2007-05-01T17:07:38Z

Tmtoulouse:

2007-04-27T22:26:37Z

Tmtoulouse:

'''Archive:''' http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:MountainDew
==Much Better==
Nice suit, fits real good. Do you like mine?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==?==

Cut what out exactly?

:I didn't add any of the names...I simply tidied up the page, like the table. [[User:Wattylfc|Wattylfc]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Big edits==
Thanks for the tip. Why the name change, MountainDew? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I see... I don't think your old discussion page redirects to your new one. Might want to put a redirect in there too so people don't get confused. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks!==

Thanks for blocking Iamwhoiam. I hate having to sit here and revert all that nonsense when I can be contributing to articles! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 15:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrocoite&diff=132272&oldid=132268 Thanks for the revert!] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 18:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Main Page ==
i did not write the comment on encyclopediac standards. I deleted the f word in the comment and you banned the user.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

--------------
I took a screen shot of those ban messages lol. I shall post them under the heading "Look what conservapeida bans you for". Indeed. I shall never run our of IPs dude so why ban me?
-----
will you not ban me if i just stay on talk pages?

Oh well ban me if you want i need to get a good night sleep school tomorow.

Have a nice night (or day depending on your geologial position)

== Lazarus ==

The new article [[Lazarus (Parable)]] is ready. But I am not able to make the disambig to ([[Lazarus]]).

Could you please do it?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you!

::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good luck ==

with that paper. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==vandals==

Here's my question - some people are creating articles that have offensive titles, but benign content. In these situations, I can delete the content, but the offensive title still exists on a site. I know the Sysops can delete these entirely, but is there anything I can do to erase that material? All I know to do is alert Sysops of the problem, but if nobody is available to delete it immediately, the articles can sit on the site and look bad for the site. Any ideas? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:27, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Eagle... ==

I was too slack to make Eagle (it doesn't help if one is not a US citizen)... but does that make me a Scout for Life? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Question for you on the [[Conservapedia_talk:Request_for_Bureaucratship]] page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind ... saw your reason. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Grandpa!==
Nananana Batman!

* 14:43, 24 April 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cherry-picking" (too much speculation)

Thanks, MountainDew. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick catch there of "Andrew Nissian"! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hey Dan==
I just wanted to ask why the Ted Stevens got reverted out of the "internet" article. The series of tubes statement is getting passed around a lot and I think people need to know where it came from.1

==New Age==
What was wrong with my edits to [[New Age]] that they had to be reverted? I didn't use the {stub} template on that one. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Budapest ==
I understood.--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 19:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Beaver ? ==

''"Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet."''

I really don't know what you're talking about here; my [[Beaver]] article is '''entirely factual'''.

Lots of animals are classified as fish by the Catholic Church for Lenten dietary purposes; I thought that was an interesting beaver-related fact. I will get you a citation for it... Here [http://anvil.unl.edu/agnes/RecreatingLent.htm]

Had I wished to create a properly satirical article about ''Beavers'' it would surely have been rather different, just run the implications of the word through your mind...

(My biscuit article was entirely factual too, that sort of thing really does go on - again I can get you a reference if you like.) If you considered the material to be irrelevent or inappropriate, you were free to remove it. Defining it as vandalism (and blocking me for it) was a most unfair and disproportionate reaction in my opinion.

You've blocked me unjustly once, and now you're persecuting me about the content of a completely authentic article. Please stop doing this. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Just wondering==

What could I do to gain your trust? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I can't say I agree with your assessment of the "edit war" at Fargo. The source was eventually added, btw, so I think I was right. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== NAMBLA ==

I certainly don't advocate for NAMBLA or the inclusion of the link, but for the sake of knowledge, NAMBLA has never explicitly supported man-boy love; they promote the legalization of such activity. Sick perverts... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mammon ==

I need an expert. I found this article, and it was a hostile rant, but not without some truth. I changed it to create a structure, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable adding a lot of content. Could you or someone else with knowledge help out?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
==[[User:JeffersonDarcy]]==
I endorse the block on JeffersonDarcy; I was going to do it myslelf and with a 12 hour block using [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Edit_Warring Edit Warring] as a Guideline. He can't say he wasn't warned, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&diff=prev&oldid=131570] and I want to make a record I support it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:I screwed up, as a guideline this reads [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Between_A_Sysop_and_a_non_Sysop 3 hours to one week] after the warning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal ==
No problem. Thanks for blocking him. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any idea on how to tag this guy, Dan? I blocked some of his IP's I found via Traceroute, but he's still coming back. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Polap Srewdna ==

he didn't edit, why the block?

== You can talk to me directly==

Mate, I an't hiding anything feel free to ask me anything, anytime. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Take another look at my contributions the past few days since the reversal of my block. Take a look at what icewedge has contributed to the site in the last few days. Then ask whether a post by icewedge with a vague cryptic remark on my wikipedia talk page tips the scales relative to my contributions to put me under investigation. If you are curious about why I post that message on various talk pages, feel free to ask me directly. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No harm, no foul. I am only pressing this point because I am a member of this community, there is WAY to much of this SYSOPS vs. Editors war floating around. Lets work towards breaking down that wall. We are both humanbeings, whatever usergroup we are in shouldn't force use to talk past or around each other.

As to why I post that message, take a look at the users I post it too. They are not vandals, they are not people that are bad. They are people that have a political, scientific, and cultural view much like my own. They also share a common interest in wiki editing and have decided to try conservapedia out. Much like myself. This is a group of people with a lot in common. We like to talk to each other about a range of things. Its off-topic to CP and doesn't belong here. So when I see someone that I think would be interested in our group I invite them to contact me and we talk about it. Nothing nefarious there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

2007-04-27T20:39:18Z

Tmtoulouse: New page: '''Critical thinking''' is an approach to analyzing the world around you. It draws heavily on ideas from the Scientific revolution and advocates an approach of data acquisition and rat...

'''Critical thinking''' is an approach to analyzing the world around you. It draws heavily on ideas from the [[Scientific revolution]] and advocates an approach of data acquisition and rational assessment. When applying critical thinking the goal is to collect as much relevant [[data]] as possible, and then asses that data for accuracy, and finally use the data to arrive at the most justified conclusions possible. Critical thinking is an on going process and even ideas that one feels are well supported need to occasionally reevaluate them to see if new information might lead to a change of mind.

Critical thinking uses many aspects of [[formal logic]] and [[informal logic]]. It also focuses on discovering [[bias]], [[propaganda]] , [[delusion]] and [[deception]] both in the sources of ones information and ones own views and approaches to reasoning problems out.

2007-04-27T18:08:52Z

Tmtoulouse:

Sigmund Freud

2007-04-27T18:08:15Z

Tmtoulouse:

[[Image:freud-thumb.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Freud in his laboratory]]
'''Sigmund Freud''' (1856–1939) was the father of [[psychoanalysis]].
In 1938 he fled the [[Nazi]]s by travelling to [[England]], where he lived until his death.

He co-founded the psychoanalytic school of [[psychology]]. Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind, especially involving the mechanism of repression; his symbolic interpretation of dreams; his redefinition of sexual desire as mobile and directed towards a wide variety of objects; and his therapeutic technique, especially his understanding of transference in the therapeutic relationship and the symbolic interpretation of dreams as sources of insight into unconscious desires.

Freud proposed that the human psyche consists of three parts -- Ego, super-ego, and id -- and that defense mechanisms are an attempt by the mind to resolve conflicts between the super-ego and the id.

Freud's theories were unscientific, as pointed out by [[Karl Popper]] and others at the time. Much of Freud's psychosexual theories and his tripartite model have failed any empirical investigation. Psychoanalysis as a [[clinical psychology | clinical]] method has been shown to be as effective as other talk therapies, but this is not likely to reflect the accuracy or inaccuracy of the underlying theories merely the positive effect of talking about ones problems. Some of Freud's revolutionary ideas have been shown to be correct. One of Freud's major contributions was the recognition of an [[unconcious]] mind being able to guide and control thoughts and behavior. Also Freud was the first to popularize the idea that people can go through developmental stages in both mind and body. However much controversy remains about Freud and his work, such as the claim that he lied about his own subjects to make it appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit.<ref>"The verdict has been uniformly negative: Freud as a scientist, metapsychologist, and diagnostician of society emerges as a quack. This view has not greatly perturbed true believers." [http://human-nature.com/freud/tallis.html]</ref>

Sigmund Freud died of maxillary [[cancer]] at the age of 82.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:psychologists|Freud, Sigmund]]

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-27T15:47:17Z

Tmtoulouse:

Adam ate the apple because of president Bush. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahahahah this is great. Were the tainted peanutbutter illness cause be president Bush's shrinking of the FDA?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Snicker TeeHee. Was the Quagmire in Iraq caused by bush ignoring and then firing the general who told him he needed half a million troops?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

''Which'' President Bush? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Har Har Har that is hilarious Dpbsmith. I guess the answer is both yeeehaaaaw.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:40, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Was a strong economy and no new terror attacks President Bush's failed strategy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Now that is funny Jpatt[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Know what else is funny, every Bush hater can't say a single good thing about GWB, not one thing.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Should the Virginia Tech incident be considered a Terrorist attack that occured in the homeland? Should it be considered a major terrorist attack?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:49, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Since in the eyes of the conservatives, there is nothing redeeming about those Liberals, I suppose in the eyes of Liberals, everything is Bush's fault. Something just occurred to me, we are perfectly polarized and talk past one another. Time for someone else to take over. [[User:Seekcommon]]

:That is not really funny. GWB is a solid conservative and a shining example of what a conservativly lead world can be[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::GWB is a senile old bat. Now, his FATHER was actually a decent leader.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahaha, maybe he's responsible for me losing my car keys this morning too ; )--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 12:19, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

That really lame Fingermouse. You are like the slow guy that ruins the ride for everyone else[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:31, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

How about contributing more articles and less talk and ad hominems Rebiu. 90/10 is more like 100/0 in your case. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 11:41, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not Many Are Claiming it Is ==

I've not seen many people directly blaming President Bush. I do see many conservatives like Rush Limbaugh bending over backwards to blame liberals and even the liberal arts department where Cho studied, even though his instructors seem to have done everythiing they could. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==No one is to blame==

Things just happen, the need to blame, the need to find a cause, and the need to go over it again and again and again, and to create some sort of grand community response is actually a phenomenon I am really curious about. I have started a project to examine these themes in more detail, anyone interested in contributing or exploring (its wiki and forum based) should check out [http://www.disasterbate.com] (WARNING: Its not conservapedia, there are examples of strong language, evolutionary thought, and atheistic themes so you know if you should stay out or not). [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Milgram experiment

2007-04-27T06:05:25Z

Tmtoulouse:

This is an amazing experiment in the history of psychology, the significance of it can not be underestimated. After 50 years of discussion I still don't think we are close to fully understanding all of the ramifications from its results. I hope people here who have not heard of it before will take some time to consider it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:00, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:The main ramification I've taken from is that some people will do ANYTHING if an Authority Figure tells them to. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Some"? Thats the problem, EVERY SINGLE PERSON went to 300 volts, way past the moment of the persons distress. Well over half went all the way. Its easy to look back and say you would walk out. But chances are you would not have. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-04-27T06:03:58Z

Tmtoulouse:

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]
# [[Conservapedia:Front Page| Front Page - Encylopedia? Or Propaganda?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, why did God lie about what the outcome would be (Genesis 2:17),9 while the serpent told the truth (Genesis 3:5,22)? ]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia: 'το πνευμα ἁγιον'; how would you translate it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Are there any people who visit this site and contribute to debates that aren’t Christian?? ]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Are Souls Unlimited?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britian become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Do violent video games play a role in people on the edge of sanity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God did not mean us to develop a Theory of Evolution, why did he provide us with the capacity to do science, and leave such convincing evidence lying around ?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==

# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Communists at Conservapedia|Should known communists be banned from editing at Conservapedia??]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Should I remove the gross Spanish profanity passing itself off as translations in several articles?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Why do so many topical debates descend into embarassing personal attacks?]]
# [[Why are editors allowed to use personal blogs and other unsourced sites as citations?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are we living in a computer simulation?| Are we living in a computer simulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does your mom go to college?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]

Talk:Milgram experiment

2007-04-27T06:00:50Z

Tmtoulouse: New page: This is an amazing experiment in the history of psychology, the significance of it can not be underestimated. After 50 years of discussion I still don't think we are close to fully underst...

Milgram experiment

2007-04-27T05:59:03Z

Tmtoulouse:

The '''Milgram experiment''' was a one of the most seminal experiments in all of [[psychology]] and specifically in [[social psychology]]. It was done by [[Stanley Milgram]] at [[Yale University]] and published in 1963. The study focused on obedience to authority and showed that people were willing to perform dangerous and even deadly actions against other people under instruction from an authority figure.

The central tenant that Milgram wanted to address revolved around the trial of [[Adolf Eichmann]] a [[Nazi]] [[war criminal]]. Eichmann insisted through out his trial that he was "only following orders." Milgram wanted to know "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"<ref> Milgram, Stanley. (1974), ''Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View''. Harpercollins (ISBN 0-06-131983-X).</ref> To answer this question Milgram recruited 40 men between 20 and 50 to participate an in experiment that would test their willingness to harm another person while "only following orders."

==Method==

The subject was brought into the room and met with another individual they were told was also a volunteer (in actuality it was someone working for the experiment, a confederate). The researcher told both participants they would be participating in an experiment that would test the effects of [[punishment]] on [[learning]].

Then the researcher presented the subject and the confederate with a piece of paper which they were told either said teacher or learner. The subject thought there was a 50 percent chance he would be one or the other, but in reality the subject was always the teacher and the confederate always the learner. Afterwards, the confederate went behind a wall and the subject sate at a desk with what looked like an electric-shock generator.

The subject was given a list of words that were paired together. He was instructed to read the word pairs to the other individual and then say the first word and ask what word was paired with it. The subject gave four possible answers and the learner would push a button that would light up in front of the teacher to signify the answer. The teacher was then suppose to give a shock if the answer was wrong, or move on to the next word if correct. For each wrong answer the shock voltage would be turned up a notch.

The subject was under the impression a real electric shock was given each time. But in reality no shock was ever administered. Instead the activating of the eletric-shock generator would play a clip from an audio tape that gave more and more distraught responses. The confederate would, after a few shocks, pound on the wall and complain about a heart condition. A few shocks later the confederate would cease all communications.

At various times the subject was likely to protest to the researcher about the experiment, the purpose or the dangers to the other individual. At any time the researcher would simply offer only one of these responses:

#Please continue.
#The experiment requires that you continue.
#It is absolutely essential that you continue.
#You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wanted to stop the experiment after all four verbal prods then it would be stopped. If the subject did not stop, the experiment would end after the maximum voltage of 450v was administered for the third time.

==Results==

Many people when they first hear about the outline of the experiment often predict only a few people will proceed to the maximum voltage. In fact, Milgram asked 19 psychology majors before the experiment what they thought would happen. The average was that barely over one percent would go all the way.

The results are often surprising the first time you see them: 26 out of the 40 participants (65 percent) administered the full shock, not a single subject stopped before 300 volts. All the subjects at one point at least, expressed concern, many offering to give back their compensation if they could quit, but with the single sentence prod from the researcher they continued. Of the subjects that did stop early, none checked on the learner, or inquired about their welfare.

Several other studies have replicated Milgrams work, with over 60 percent being the standard number of individuals that are willing to deliver a fatal shock.

==Reactions and Criticisms==

By todays standards such an experiment would never receive ethical approval. The emotional distress caused to the subject would be viewed as too severe. Also the debriefing done after the experiment was not adequate by modern standards. However, all the participants in Milgram's study were polled at a later date and asked about how they felt about participating. Close to 90 percent said they were "glad" or "very glad" they did so. Many wanted to join his lab and help with his work afterwards.

The interpretations of the results and the ethical dilemmas surrounding it were instantly a hot topic. To this day psychology courses across the world focus on Milgram's work.

[[category:psychology]]

2007-04-27T02:48:34Z

Tmtoulouse:

==Archives==
[[Talk:Scientology/Archive1]]

== Terryeo ==

It doesn't take much looking through edit history here to see that by far the most significent contributor to the article is Terryeo, and that his edits consist almost entirely of downplaying or removing anything critical of scientology. I do not wish to create a fuss over this, but personally, I question his impartiality in this instance. Further, a check of his user-talk page shows he is the center of quite a debate regarding this article, and only this article.
Some sections in the comments also make wonder if he may be a scientologist himself, most notably when he responds to a claim that scientology takes large sums of money from its members with "My experience has been very very different." Being a member would, obviously, be a clear source of bias that may render his editing of this article questionable.
I considered contacting a burocrat, but consider it polite to first state my concerns here so he may have a chance to defend himself. I hope my accusations do not lead to any unpleasantness.
--BornAgainBrit

: Defend myself? Defend myself against what? I have posted a full view of your attack against me on my user page and have raised your underhanded "question" [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Can.27t_we_all_just_get_along.3F here]. Why weren't you were unable to ask the general community about standard editing policy and get the concensus of the editing community as I did in that link ? Happy Ho Ho's. -[[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==New User==

Am I allowed to change the page at all, because right now it is really bad. It doesn't tell all the weird stuff about the cult.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 22:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Its a wiki, we encourage editing! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]]

The User who calls themselves "JoyousOne" has clearly not understood the situation with this wiki. We do encourage editing. But we edit responsibily toward articles that are factual. The Conservapedia Commandments [[The_Conservapedia_Commandments]] and in particular, Commandment 1 which says that your edit must be verifiable. Your editing produced, "and avoiding any mention of faith's ability to help the individual." Yet Hubbard addresses that exact issue in various of his lectures. But it is not my duty to prove this to you. It is your duty to edit responsibily. Your edits must be verifiable. Commandment 2 spells that out, it says, "Always cite and give credit to your sources". I will remove those of your edits that are not verified and which I, through my own personal knowledge, are untrue. But any editor who is responsible should do that, anyway.

You went on to produce, "The basis of Christianity is denied", yet you fail to attribute WHERE the basis of Christianity is denied. Now, I could tell you personally about the many Christians I personally know who are Scientologists. But I won't, instead I will remove your unattributable statement, "The basis of Christianity is denied" because I know that you will never be able to attribute that to any Scientology statement. Probably what has happened is that you have read a critical - to - scientology website that says something like that. But that isn't what Scientology says. If you find such a statement and wish to present it as "Controvery", well, no one is going to stop you, but you are mistaken to say that the Church of Scientology "denies the basis of Christianity".

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. First, edit responsibly by reading [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. Second, your edits must be verifiable information. Third, cite your sources so that a reader of the article can learn more about what you are talking about. And welcome to Conservapedia.However, such editing is to be toward ariticles of a certain quality. John Smith could not become an editor and the wiki to place is opinion. This is exactly what JoyousUser has done, Joyous User has '''PLACED AN OPINION''' as an edit. This is what the wiki discourages, while encouraging editing. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 00:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you failed to read my citations. Scientology's own site denies the power of Christian faith, and so-called Christians who claim to be scientologists will come back eventually. You seem to have a lot of unsupported opinions or some kind of agenda, or maybe I am reading you wrong. If so, I am very sorry.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 00:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:: At no point has Scientology ever made such a statement that "denies the power of (any) faith", and in fact I just finished a lecture series in which Hubbard addresses the power of faith. In fact, Hubbard uses Jesus' miricles as an example of faith. You are plain wrong and I know it. BUT, you are completely welcome to your opinion and if you will simply cite your facts, if you will reference your facts and smoothly insert them into the article then they can remain. But when you state your own opinion as if it were a fact, then it can not remain in the article. Where does "denial of the power of Christian faith" appear? What webiste says there, where does it say that, what phrase leads you to that? Is that simple enough for you? Where does that appear. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way,, one of my edits is so far uncited, as I was not satisfied with the quality of any one source I referenced. If I cannot find a good cite for that, I'll have to take it down, so any help would be appreciated.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 00:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: You can not place a conclusion which you personally hold on this article if it is your opinion alone. You are talking to 6.5 BILLION people Joy, can you dig it? Read your articles, do your reasearch, and then place known facts into the article. Especially where you have not studied the information that comprises the subject. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::Im not really sure what you find so confusing. The Church's site specifically, as cited, denies faith, and since faith is the basis of Christianity, well, it doesn't take a theologian to get that. I don't care if they want to believe that stuff, but don't hide the real beliefs. You seem to be deceiving yourself.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
==Popularity==

Might I point out that Scientology is a very popular article at conservapedia, perhaps it would be a good idea to recruit more editors so that the article can reflect a consensus? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's still not as popular as my user [[User:ColinR|page]]! :-P [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I think everyone knows popularity is not as important as "importance". The article was so deceptive as it was, I had to add to it a little. Everything is cited, except as noted, and most if it is from Scientology's own literature, so I am not sure what the problem is. Your page is very nice though, Colin.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 00:59, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be better for people reverting to address on the talk page what problems they have with the information? Just a suggestion. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 01:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone made huge changes to my additions, even though I gave good citations for everything, and I think what I wrote is actually fact, considering a lot of it comes from the church's literature. I wish he would stop doing that.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I did that Joyous. You may view who does what by clicking the "History" tab at the top of most pages. Both the article and this discussion page have History Tabs, you may learn exactly who typed every word you see on the page, removed any word from the page, etc. There are no secrets here. I did most of that. My edit summaries tell you why I did that. For example:
* "Scienotology denies the foundation of the Christain Religion" (and you quote how 'if it is true for you, it is true"). Now I understand that A + B = C to you. BUT, that is not what everyone gets. One does not equal the other.
* When you find a rumor at Xenu.net (God knows there is a whole lot of rumor on Xenu.net), and you place that rumor into the article as a rumor, and you likewise state that rumor has been legally opposed by the Church of Scientology, then you are addressing an issue that has 2 sides, you see? Both sides have taken a strong stance, both sides have made a real issue of it, both sides have spent a good deal of time and money over the issue. There are necessarily 2 sides to an issue that has been in court, do you see? Therefore, it is WRONG to present an undecided rumor into the article in such a way that your personal, biased, uneducated point of view controls or colors the reader's view of the issue.
* Scientology is composed of, perhaps, 40 million words. That is a LOT of information. Critics have created a lot of information too, though far less of it in recent years. It might be helpful for you to edit a less complex issue for a short while and read the editing commandments and talk with other editors and get the feel of this place. Though of course I'm just trying to be helpful here. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::My point about the Xenu thing is not about the truths of your beliefs (although I obviously think you are deceived) but about the approach to quieting dissent. A real person of faith doesn't need to sue someone to prevent them from saying bad things about their faith; it is left up to God, and to human discussion.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please listen to what I am saying to you. Scientology does not have BELEIFS. Therefore Xenu has nothing to say in the area. A real person of real faith may or may not have BELIEFS, scientology does not harbor BELIEFS as part of its FAITH, please understand this very very basic datum so we may proceed. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::As for your little syllogism problem, anyone who denies faith, and insists on "if it is true for you..." is inherently against Christianity, in fact denegrates the faith of the worlds Christians, who are willing to believe in the power of God through faith alone.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's right. I have a little syllogism problem. A syllogism [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syllogism dictionary] is a conclusion that logically follows from two premises. "I know that apples are '''green'''" (if it is true for me, it is true as far as I know). "Jim believes that apples are '''red'''" (Jim admits he has not seen every apple, but all the ones he has seen are red, he believes all are red). Now, what color are apples ? You state that Scientology's, "If it is true for you, then it is true" is in opposition to the very foundations of Christianity. I invite you to logically demonstrate that. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: Worth noting here is [[User:JoyousOne]]'s refusal to communicate. 2 editors have attempted to communicate with the user on the user's discussion page, yet the user continues with the user's dogged, narrow, editing in a repeated, manner. A wiki is a collaberation of author and editing effort, Joyous. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Um, that's not a syllogism. Your two premises are incredibly flawed. You say, "if it is true for me, it is true as far as I know," which is saying "I believe this." Thus, you don't '''know''' anything about apples, thus invalidating your first "premise." Moreover, the second premise, when combined with the first premise, does not allow for any valid or reasonable conclusion to be reached. Even with the "attempt" at a syllogism, you've contradicted yourself. You said Scientology has no beliefs, and "if it's true for me, it's true as far as I know." Yet, that statement is identifying a belief and nothing more. It's true for me that unicorns don't exist (I've never seen one.), ergo it must be true unicorns don't exist. Except that's not how things work. I've not see all of existence, I can't confirm the existence of unicorns either way. Given this, what is it Terryo, does Scientology have beliefs or just bad logic? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 13:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess I misunderstood what you said on my talk page. I'm happy to discuss things here, but whay not make edits like you do? You're behavious is frankly bullying, and I really won't stand for it.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 11:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Thank you VERY much for repsonding. On such a foundation we can work together and create good articles. Yes, I did bully a little when I was ignored and ignored, combined with a lot of large edits, and so on. This is better, we can talk to together and produced articles that we can all agree with. Thank you for responding. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 12:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, guys, one of the other editors has given my some tips on how to improve my contributions to this page, and I think it should be ok with you. I'll work on it.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 11:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Theory of Evolution article==

A sympathetic and accurate description of the subject of the article is not a requirement of this site. Take a look at [[theory of evolution]]. Even with all of JoyousOne's edits in its still more sympathetic then it has to be. Remember this site has a strong Christian conservative bias and will approach articles that way. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: Sympathetic? Who said anything about sympathetic? Our editing rules are the [[The_Conservapedia_Commandments|7 commandments]], where does "sympathy" enter the discussion? Are there additional commandments, rules, guidelines or ariticles of special interest that only you have access to, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]? Our production is simple and you are introducing an unneeded, unwanted, undesireable complexity (my opinion) by raising the issue of "sympathetic and accurate". What are you talking about ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Also worth noting, Tmtoulouse, your advice to [[User:JoyousOne]] might have been good advice for some articles, it gave Joyous a push into the fray that you yourself refuse to step into. You stand back from the article after editing early and push others into it. And then, JoyousOne, (of good will, but confused) had to ask [[User:Philip J. Rayment]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=126829 editing difference] what they were doing that wasn't appropriate. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::Always attack never defend, eh? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Implemented changes based on discussion to make things a bit more "neutral", and to add additional references. Thank you for the constructive criticism.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 13:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your patience, Terryeo, I still want to make sure the point is in there about the contrast with Christianity. This is not to denigrate Scientology, even though I seems wrong to me, but to present the '''fact''' that its beliefs are basically antithetical to Christianity. This is pretty much in line with the goals of the website. Thanks.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 13:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I wish to discuss, [[User:JoyousOne]], you state; ''On their official website, Scientology explicitly deny the power of faith''. I think the you are presenting a logical sequence, are you not?
::: (Scientology quote) ''In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.''

::: (Dictionary quote) ''Faith - belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.'' example; the firm faith of the Pilgrims. [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith dictionary].
:I think i follow, okay? Do I understand you correctly, is that your line of reasoning that leads to, ''Scientology explicitly denies the power of faith'' ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, yes, I suppose you do. Since they do not "take a stand" on faith, most Christians would consider this a denial of faith. I'm sorry if that offends, but it is honest and truthful.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 14:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Beliefs ==

How can it be said that Scientology does not have beliefs? That is pretty much impossible, or else reading their information would be like reading random typing by a monkey (and don't get me started on that). The explicitly say that they '''believe''' self-improvement is achievable in such-and-such a way, etc.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 13:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ok this is getting out of hand ==

Perhaps you both should do a pro vs. con set up on this page. Right now it is a slander war against Scientology. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so a presentation of what the topic is considered to be is the most important feature of the topic. A category of criticisms in the bottom would be fine and give talk time with these issues. With the multiple headers it seems to be a debate page between Scientology and Christianity, note that which denomination of Christianity is not listed.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:20, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:One of the defining features of scientology is the controversy that surrounds it. Also material that addresses concerns from a christian perspective is to be expected from CP, no? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is it out of hand? I just showed the clear differences between the two in the article, as is part of the mission here, and, out of respect for other editors, helped integrated their content. It seems to be a balanced look at the topic, not a "Crossfire" episode.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It is pretty clear that [[User:TimS]] has plainly pointed out what is going on. A quick view of the article's edit history [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&action=history] illustrates what he says. Further, the exact photo that Wikipedia once used to gently introduce readers to the slanderous presentation at wikipedia was introduced here. When I say "slanderous" I mean exactly that. The Wikipedia editors include people who have a history of lawsuit, with the the Church of Scientology, such people run personal webistes on the very edge of legal and simotaneously edit Wikipedia's Scientology series articles. The photo was introduced there, as it has been introduced here. Tmtoulouse seems quite happy to see the article marching down a roadway toward slander and mis-statement, JoyousOne does not understand how Joyous' opinion is not what the Church means when it says, ''In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true''. Yet do either discuss the issues that drive their changes to the article? Alas, no, neither do. THAT is what [[User:TimS]] is talking about. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:That was a highly confusing and ungrammatical rant. It also serves to illustrate the point that Scientologists do not tolerated criticsim, even threatening legal remedies. I am a Christian; critique my beliefs all you want. Feel free. Post pictures of Christian churches that I dont like (especially the big Maytag looking thing in San Francisco). I won't threaten you but offer Christian compassion.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ah, bullbaiting, how fun. The photo is public domain and makes the article look nicer. QED. Your other libelous claims about slander and libel are not really important since those people are not editing this page, non? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::I tried to clean it up a little, Tim, I hope this helps.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, sports fans. We have differing points of view. I am PERFECTLY willing to talk about EVERY detail of these things. Several personal attacks have been created. And what does this lead to? It leads to EXACTLY the sort of editing situation present at Wikipedia. Please maintain a polite attitude. Please, never again tell an editor they have "ranted", nor that their introduced inormation "does not matter" nor that they have a "silly sylogism" and phrases of that ilk. It is inappropriate to editor relationships. It is unfortunate, it happens, let's move on and find a way to work together. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:You set the tone, when you bullbait you get personal attacks, if you want things to be peaceable stop bullbaiting. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::: The tone was actually set, mr. bullbait accuser, by your encouraging Joy, who had little editing experience here, to jump into the water with both feet. However, we need not stay with that, I am attempting to move toward cooperation. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh forbid! You mean I encouraged a new user to edit an article they were interested in? I encouraged content expansion? Oh the horror! I see now how evil I have been. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why are you refusing to move toward cooperation, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]? I have offered you see? I have even complained, you see? Why are you refusing to move toward a cooperative effort? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::My only contribution to this scientology article lately has been the image. Your issue is with other people not me. I did do dianetics and L. ron hubbard, I think thetan is made now too. But this article, meh, I washed my hands of it a while ago. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== How to handle this editing conflict ==

We have developed a problem with this article. We need some manner, some mechanism, some method of dealing with these various points of view. Any suggestions ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:59, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:The only problem seems to be that you "can't handle the truth". There is nothing here untruthful or misrepresented. I am not sure what your problem is.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Consensus building, bring other editors in and get their opinion and see how the community wants to present itself. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe Andy should help resolve this? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The more the merrier, though I was hoping the community could participate in an active discussion and not so much use sysop power to prevent discussion, but however he sees fit, his site his rules. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if this help, T, but I found a video online that might be a good ref for the page. I don't think I know enough about Scientology to add much else, but here you go: http://www.xenutv.com/pickets/boston-assault.htm [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Now thats bullbaiting! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::I thought this is what you were looking for as a possible ref for their behavior? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::(should also mention that I can't hear it--at work.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: [[User:Tmtoulouse]] has stated that [[User:Flippin]] has "bullbaited". However [[User:Tmtoulouse]] just got through posting to this page that [[User:Tmtoulouse]] had "washed their hands" of this page. While [[User:Flippin]] gave it his very best shot and attempted to be helpful toward conflict resolution. In addition, Flippin is discussing the issues toward conflict resolution while [[User:Tmtoulouse]] stands back with undefined comments, (bullbaiting, an undefined word). May I invite you [[User:Tmtoulouse]], to responsibly fulfill the words you type? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't accuse Flippin of bullbaiting, the link shows a good example of what scientologist refer to as bullbaiting and what you are doing. You invite me to do whatever you want. Doesn't mean I need to accept. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:45, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Isn't this a cult? ==

I know that may sound inflamatory to some people here, but I thought the US is one of only a couple countries that even recognizes this as a bona fide religion. Further, is this really then "family-friendly" per commandment 3? I am not so sure we should promote cults on this site. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Does the US even recognize it as a religion? My understanding was that it has tax exemption from the IRS and thats about it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I have also put this up, to spark discussion: [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:33, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, as far as I know Scientology is a cult, or has a cult-like status. Most of the refs I've seen talk about all the brainwashing that goes on in their temples, or whatever. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Worried about the infamous 90/10, but one last bit, hasn't all of their stuff been published in Norway? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Its also a giant commercial venture, which just adds a strange mix to the whole thing. The way they extract money from people is crazy. The OT III documents are published on a sever in Europe, maybe norway, not sure. It used to be sourced here. But Scientologist don't like discussion of Xenu and it was removed. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::How does one discuss scientology without discussing Xenu? I thought that and thetons or whatever were their bread and butter? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::They know it makes them look bad. Its a Dutch server that has the OT III documents [http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/spaink-ot3.html here]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, T. Well the first thing I notice is that they are in direct conflict with the YEC when they say the space opera took place 95 Billion years ago. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Generalizations==

It seems to me that many of the paragraphs on this page are generalizations that should be narrowed down. When JoyousOne claims that Scientology is in direct conflict with Christian teachings perhaps it should be stated what teachings it is in conflict with and whose teachings. Since there are so many different denominations of Christians it would help with a source to who states that it is in conflict. For now it is a very broad generalization.

On the other side Terryeo should talk with JoyousOne about how to go about adding the criticisms in a way that is constructive to the article. Yes, they should be well sourced and thought out before placement but they should still be there. We do not want another Theory of Evolution page where the article is one sided.

::I can see where you're going here, but it seems like just by being a different religion, created by a sci-fi writer, that it is automatically in direct conflict with Christianity. Am I wrong here? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Yes, you are mistaken but that is exactly what critics hope for, that a common person of any faith would become mistaken. In actuality, there are many Christians who study scientology at Churches of Scientology. Some of those call themselves both Christians and Scientologists because neither conflicts in any way with the other. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::If you see my comment in the above section, doesn't YEC directly conflict with scientology's belief that the earth is 95 billion years old? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Scientology does not state that anyone should believe the earth is a million, billion or 95 billion years old. Hubbard did not state the information he wrote and lectured as "beliefs". He stated what he knew to be true. A person who studies what he wrote and said may do whatever they like with his stated word. There is no belief that makes one a scientologist. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So Scientology is just nothing then, guess they don't need that tax exemption after all. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:Tmtoulouse]], you have stated that you have "washed your hands" of this article. Yet you persist in opinionated, inflammatory comments that are not directed toward editor cooperation, nor to conflict resolution, nor toward understanding, nor are they attributed. Will you please act responsibily ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Those in glass houses....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::But isn't this a direct quote from some of their writings?

::" The following portion of OT 3 is quoted in full in Margery Wakefield's book The Road to Xenu, chapter 13, and I believe all of it has been quoted in other books and articles as well. It provides a nice context for my summary and comments:

::The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger
stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very
space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet,
178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to
be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the
principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones
were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to
Las Palmas and there "packaged".

::His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading
data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants."

::Also, doesn't scientology have a kind of bible? or am I totally wrong here? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Scientology is comprised of about 40 million words. It proposes to be helpful. People attest that it is helpful. As one example, recent news tells of scientology's detoxification technology being helpful to 700 + emergency workers from the 9/11 event. It does not exactly have a bible, although one might argue that ''What is Scientology'' is a sort of bible. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

None of the quotation you placed here is originated by the Church of Scientology. You got that quote from a critical website, which got its information from what it says are stolen documents. Why should anyone consider such a poor source of information to contribute to Conservapedia? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Belief==

We seem to be straining the meaning of "belief" here. Perhaps, Terry, you could explain how your somewhat bizarre definition of belief is related to the one in the dictionary? I mean, for instance, as a Christian, I believe in redemption through Jesus Christ. If I were to tell my children, "thats what I believe, but you decide" and then they decide NOT to believe that, are they still Christians?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Belief''' [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief several dictionarys] The Random House Unabridged says; 4. ''a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.'' I think this is precisely the definition you mean for us to be working with. As I have earlier stated, the Church of Scientology does not present belief, nor does it deny belief. The definition I have been working with does not disinclude yours. The Random House Dictionary goes on to say; <blockquote>—Synonyms 1. view, tenet, conclusion, persuasion. 2. assurance. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. '''Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology.'''</blockquote> Scientology does not deny, nor support a person believing. Instead it says, (paraphrased) "A person may believe as they wish, what is true for them, is true for themseleves." -[[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Terry, Im sorry if I wasn't clear here...the answer to the above is "no". If they do not hold Christian beliefs, they are not Christians. If you do not believe in Scientology's teachings you are not a Scientologist. It is really too simple a concept to waste words on, and I'm not sure why you are parsing the meaning of belief so crookedly.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 17:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Scientology would neither affirm nor deny their beliefs, nor the validity of their beliefs. Nor would I. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not sure what that means, seems actually quite meaningless in the context. I wrote about Christian views of Scientology, and it is valid to discuss that. I refuse to just shut my eyes and "neither affirm nor deny". You are welcome to discuss Christian views...you won't find Christians suing you for your criticism.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:: What it means, Joyous is that your children are completely free to believe anything they wish to, to consider their belief to be valuable in their day to day life, as a guide to their living in every way. It is true for them, good, fine. That means it is true for them and no one should attempt to change what they find is true. This applies to belief, to tastes in apple pies, to hairstyles, races, creeds and so on. If it is true for (anyone), then it is true (for that individual). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Seems a tad [[Seung-Hui Cho | dangerous]] to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: If free thought seems a tad [[Seung-Hui Cho | dangerous]] to you, why are you editing here? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Free thought does not mean that truth is relative to the individual. I believe in an absolute external truth. Just like the site founder and most of the editors. We disagree on how to become closer to that Truth but we both believe it there. I am here to participate in that path. If all truth is relative to the individual..........well there is a 1000 years of philosophy behind why that is problematic. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Im sorry again, Terry, but you misunderstand me. Of course my children are free to choose their beliefs, and, thank God, they have chosen to be Christians. Had they NOT chosen to be Christians, they would not be Christians. I hate to state the obvious, but sometimes it is necessary.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You put forth a hypothetical example and I understood you were presenting a hypothetical example. I completely agree that we must establish basic agreements in order to work toward more complex ones. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, Dpsmith for the clarification.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

Does anybody know how the references got corrupted? I assume this was accidental. If anyone knows how to fix it that would be great.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 17:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Never mind, fixed it.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 17:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

I cannot believe a photo of one of your churches could offend you, but I have removed it for now pending further discussion. Perhaps you could more clearly explain how a picture of a church is bad.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 17:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I feel the burden of proof is on Terryeo and the photo should stay while we discuss it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Tmtoulouse]], you say that you have "washed your hands" of the article, but almost nothing goes by that you do not stick your opinion into, such as this one. As I stated, the caption is offensive. It is WRONG for this article to BIAS itself, presenting the Church of Scientology is a VERY CONTROVERSIAL religion. But more importantly, this article is not even about the Church of Scientology. This article's title is [[Scientology]] and that is a body of literature and lectures, a body of (what its followers state) knowledge, a philosophy. The photograph of a building does not represent the philosophy in any manner. It should be removed. If you want to create an article, the [[Church of Scientology]], then it ''might'' be appropropriate there. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:55, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:The caption doesn't say anything about the church, its just an illustration, pictures are good for articles, make them look much more professional. This is one of the most visited articles at this site, its worth it to make it look good. Please suggest other public domain photos we could choose from if you like. The gestapo copyright tactics of the "church" make it difficult. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Once again, Terry, I think you are stretching definitions a little. Church of Scientology vs Scientology, that seems a bit over-parsed. --[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I am only reiterating, I am not creating. The Church of Scientology says this exact thing and I'll happily get you a link. L. Ron Hubbard created the body of knowledge that he called "Scientology". Then he founded the Church of Scientology. He entrusted the Church of Scientology with his created body of knowledge. The Church says it disseminates Hubbard's Scientology. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I get it. God, through Jesus, gave the world the knowledge we call Christianity, but Christian churches entrusted to help spread the knowledge are different from "Christianity"? Of course there are many kinds of churches, so are you saying that there is "Scientology" but many different sects? It is all very unclear.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Your Christian example seems quite valid ! Yes, that's it. Christianity would exist with, or without any Christian Church, would it not, because it is an idea and supported or proposed by the [[Holy Bible]]. Hubbard was the sole creator of Scientology, though other people contributed in various ways. He took up his entire 40 million words and entrusted it to the Church of Scientology. His books, his created works would exist with or without the Church of Scientology. Maybe a book photograph would be appropriate for this article. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:33, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:It needs to be public domain, and something the church wouldn't declare defacto copyright on. Any suggestions? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Terry, in an article on Christianity, I want to see a picture of a church, Lutheran, Catholic, I don't care, just a nice illustration. For Scientology, we need one too. Just find us an alternate if you'd like. Also, I'm unclear why this one is bad, but, let's just say it is, and when you find a better one, we will replace it. Sound good?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Terryeo, could you suggest a better photo thats in the public domain for this article? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:On the other hand, this whole discussion is bizarre. No Christian church would stop you from posting a picture...ever. We should just leave this if T has no alternative. This is like Alice in Wonderland, I mean, how crazy is this? Why would a church sue for showing their picture?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryO, I was going to ask which bit of the photograph's caption you disagreed with, as it all seems quite correct to me. I gather, however, that it was to the "very controversial" bit. Frankly, I'm surprised that you would dispute that Scientology is very controversial, but I also noticed that before it was removed, the word "very" was removed. Is the caption acceptable to you in that form ("Scientology center in Los Angeles, California. Scientology is a controversial religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard")?

Second, I don't accept your argument that the article is about the religion and the photograph is of a church. That the photograph is of a church ''of that religion'' is quite enough. You can't have a picture of a religion itself, because a religion is not a physical object, so any pictures must be of objects ''associated with'' that religion. A Scientology church clearly is.

Thirdly, neither do I accept your argument about the trademark. If you can show me to be wrong, go ahead, but until you do, I will believe that the situation you are talking about is using a trademark itself, not about using a photograph that happens to have a trademark in it's proper setting and occupying a small portion of the picture.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:1. You are quite right, my arguement was about the photo's caption. And that has been made more realistic.
:2. Scientology is the title of the article. Because editors here have been quoting from Wikipedia, I'll place Wikipedia's first line of their Scientology article here: Wikipedia states: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques developed by L. Ron Hubbard." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology first line]No mention of "church" you see? So what does a scientology website say: "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy developed by L. Ron Hubbard." [http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp50/pg1024.html almost first line]. Please note, it is a '''philosophy''' which means a body of knowledge. Its area of knowledge is religion. A religous philosophy does not make a church but is a body of knowledge. Here are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_10#Scientology_is_a_philosophy my words] about this issue at Wikipedia. (because everyone is poking me about my wikipedia edits). So what does the Church of Scientology do? It was entrusted by Hubbard to keep his philosophy intact and to disseminate its use. But these are actually separate things. The philosophy itself would exist with or without the Church. As the Holy Bible would exist with or without any Church.
:3. About the trademark. Sorry, I can not find the arguements at Wikipedia that resulted in that photo, and like photos that feature trademarks as large parts of the photo, removed. It is beyond my area of knowledge. I was working with what I recalled. Perhaps [[User:Tmtoulouse]] can make the situation more clear but I can not. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"A trademark right doesn't give you the right to forbid use of the word. What is does give is the right to prevent use of the word in a way the would confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods or the sponsorship of the goods," said Terrence Carroll, a copyright attorney. This from [http://news.com.com/Scientologists+in+trademark+disputes/2100-1023_3-207618.html]. The photograph is not a picture of the body of information that is scientology. Please understand, I am not attempting to cause a problem, but to resolve a potential problem. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Unbelieveable. Christianity is a body of belief and knowledge, and churches are ONE of the many places people practice it, just as with Scientology. Therefore, a picture of one of these venues is illustrative of the concept. Your arguments on this are bizarre, T, and you give no rationale for it.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 14:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Scientology and Christianity ==

I separated out the Young Earth Creationism material because it shouldn't really be lumped under Christianity. The belief in a young Earth is not usually considered to be a fundamental tenet of Christianity; it's not in the Nicene Creed (which doesn't mention the Bible or Creation at all) and it's not in most catechisms.

Furthermore, it's not typical of all of Christianity. It is Protestants in particular who put great stress on the words of the Bible, and it is typically Protestants who are Young Earth Creationists.

Finally, the material on the age of the Earth is primarily in Genesis and is not touched upon in the New Testament.

In general, one can say that most Young Earth Creationists would identify themselves a Christians, but most self-identified Christians would not identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::The Nice Creed refers to "the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible" and the "Lord Jesus Christ ... by whom all things were made". They are both direct references to creation. And implicitly to a young-Earth creation, as nobody or next to nobody at that time believed that 6 days could somehow mean billions of years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed two sentences in this section to bring them closer to the actual content of the references that support them. I've tried not to alter the point they are making. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much for the help!--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thomas H. Cruise!==

I can't believe how many hits this article is getting, it must be ''all over'' the interwebs. Great work, folks. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Trademarks ==

I'm pretty sure from my editing experience at Wikipedia that the photograph placed by TMlouse (does TM mean "trademark"?) defies law. As I understand it, when a photograph includes a trademark, then the referenced material must be about that trademark for it to qualify as fair use. You can not take Pepsi-cola's trademark, either as an individual trademark or as a photograph, and place it into an article about anything except trademark itself. This article is about "scientology". The article is not about "the church of scientology" nor about the trademark of the Church. I'm pretty sure that photograph in this article is an illegal use of the photograph. If you go to Wikipedia you can trace that exact, same photograph, it was used there for a time. And removed for this exact reason. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 06:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:See, this is one of the points where you use me, and reinforces some of my (admitted) preconceptions. Why fight a picture illustrating a gathering place for Scientologists? Why make legal threats. Something here does not make sense. When Christians feel under threat, we open our arms, and embrace those who would denigrate us. We don't sue them. In this case, there isn't even any attack on Scientology, just a picture of a building with the name on it. If you put up a sign on a public street and someone wants to take a picture and display it, so what?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 07:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its still used on several pages at wikipedia, no one took it down because they decided this trademark argument was bunk there too. Not much else to say about it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Terryeo appears to be a contentious problem editor on this subject ==

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence

I suggest that he be closely watched and disciplinary actions be taken if appropriate. Does anyone have any problems with Terryeo at this point? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

My only real problem is that he seems to focus on ''removal'' of information, rather than ''addition'' of information, and creates ''complexity'' rather than ''simplicity''.
*His (IMO) bizarre focus on the photo issue is problematic
*His desire to equate the concept of "thetan" with Christian soul is problematic, given one is admittedly materialistic and one is divine.
*His bizarre rambling statements
*His constant referring back to legal issues, which should be irrelevant.
*He denies the centrality of faith as a '''irreconcilable difference''' between Christianity and Scientology, despite their own literature.
--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 08:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''I gave Terryeo a warning at the [[Dianetics]] talk page for turning the article into a dianetics advertisement.''' If he keeps it up, there are going to be problems. Here was his version: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dianetics&oldid=128508[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: As I stated there. I have stopped editing until I understand what you are talking about, Conservative. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:His old version has that same style of writing that says nothing, despite having lots of words. It doesn't tell the reader anything.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 09:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:: "His old version" ???? I have edited that page only once. It was immediately reverted. By whom, you might wonder? Simply click the "history" tab at the top of any article to view every edit ever made to that page. You see who has made every edit and the result produced. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I will clarify for you...as you implied, it was me. I, unlike others, have nothing to hide. It was the quality, not the quantity of the edits you made that were unacceptable.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Again, I have edited the [[Dianetics]] article once and once only. Again, to see who edited and what they produced, simply click the "history" tab at the top of any article. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I have pointed out specifically, the problem with the photograph. It is not up to me, it is up to other people. [[User:JoyousOne]] considers my information about the photograph to be a legal threat. I made no threat, I pointed out the legal problems with a photograph of a trademark. If you all wish to talk about how Conservapedia should be aware of and follow the footsteps of Wikipedia, I'll be glad to talk about that, too. In no case have I tried to advertise, nor to convince anyone of what I know to be true. I place good information, attributed information on the page and attempt to keep criticsm and bias placed after the subject has been introduced. But I worked all day yesterday while many, many edits were made to this article, worked toward getting an even handed article that doesn't sound like clambake org. Now I am told that my editing is unwelcome. Happy Ho Ho's. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Can we limit the citations?==
Do we really need to quote the text verbatim, or can we just paraphrase? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Feel free to paraphrase where you think it would be helpful to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== as a point of information ==

Editors might wish to compare our article here to another wiki's article. Why do I say this? I say this because most of this article does not contain the information that constitutes scientology. It contains plenty of criticism but it does not really tell you what the subject is about. Here is another wiki's treatment of the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Scientology#_ref-2 same subject]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::We heard the same about the [[Theory of evolution]] article. Let the readers decide if Scientology deserves ample criticism from the sources cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: I was of the impression that our motivations were not reader's estimations of how much criticsm an article should contain. Is that in the commandments somewhere? I would like to follow your reasoning. Do you mean by observing the page hits of the [[Scientology]] article? I don't understand what you mean by "let the readers decide if Scientology deserves criticism". I don't understand how even a page counter would tell us what a reader's attitude is. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I don't think a page with only you as the sole author is the model to work from since you seem to be the odd person out here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 22:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
== The opinion I removed ==

I removed this from the article. It is opinion, unattributable opinion.<blockquote>Many may also be troubled with the ideas, not officially stated, but widely published,that a deity other than God ([[Xenu]]) may have influenced the presence of souls on earth.[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/xenu.html]Also, the Scientologist concept of soul ("thetan") is very different from the Christian understanding. The thetan can inhabit many bodies and lifetimes, and is not a gift of God, that ultimately returns to God.</blockquote> discussion welcome, but that is simply opinion. The link points to a page of nothing but opinion. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I see. this is "revert terry without discussion" day. I see. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the definition of opinion. As stated, it is difficult to find direct Scientology literature due to the secrecy and legal hostility. If you can come up with legal citations, let me know. You seem to know what you dont want included, but not what you want to replace it with in kind.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 22:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

: You are misinformed. All of these:
* "The thetan can inhabit many bodies and lifetimes, and is not a gift of God"
* "the Scientologist concept of soul ("thetan") is very different from the Christian understanding"
* "a deity other than God ([[Xenu]]) may have influenced the presence of souls on earth"
Are individual opinions that were never written by Hubbard. They will not be found in any Scientology literature and they will not be found on any Scientology website, ever. You are completely misinformed. When I attempt to discuss, what do I get? I get "not enough controversy, we want more controversy". When I remove personal opinion, per commandment 5: "don't post personal opinion", what do I get? I get reversion, immediate, unconditional and ongoing reversion. I have myself, in my immediate possession, most of the Scientology literature. And ANYONE can buy 99 percent of everything Hubbard ever wrote. And anyone can find at least some of it in public libraries. And amazon.com has used copies, cheap. and the library of congress lists those books. And I have tried and tried to cooperate in every possible way. You are misinformed. Here are two links to online dictionarys that define the term "thetan". [http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm#t] and [http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp50/pg1024-a.html]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The information you quote is not a definition but an extension and synthesis of what the definition entails. Therefore, citing scientology's definition of a thetan can not contradict a synthesis of the idea. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 22:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)