Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Henry VIII

2007-04-19T14:08:42Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Hellowrld (Talk); changed back to last version by Jeremiah4-22

'''Henry VIII''' lived 28 June 1491–28 January 1547 AD. He was King of [[England]] and Lord of [[Ireland]] from 22 April 1509 until his death. He was the second monarch of the [[Tudor dynasty]].

Henry is most famous for his six wives, and his split from the [[Roman Catholic Church]] in 1534. He established a new church, the [[Church of England]] that same year.

[[Category:UK Monarchs]]

Realpolitik

2007-04-19T14:08:39Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Hellowrld (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

Realpolitik is politics based on reality, which was an approach popularized by Otto von Bismarck in putting together the German nation in the years leading up to 1871. This method is associated with Machiavellian tactics, and may include either a pragmatic or otherwise non-ideological approach to achieving political ends.

{{stub}}
[[Category:politics]]

Python (programming language)

2007-04-19T14:08:26Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Hellowrld (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

[[Image:Python-logo.gif|right|thumb|Python logo|400px]]
'''Python''' is a high-level programming language created by Guido van Rossum in 1991. It is a multi-paradigm language with a fully dynamic type system and automatic memory management. Its syntax is similar to that of [[Perl]] and Smalltalk.

The most popular implementation of Python is the CPython maintained by the Python Software Foundation, developing under an [[open source]] development model, and is licensed under its own Python Software Foundation License. CPython is a bytecode interpreter and comes with a rich library that includes modules for creating graphical user interface, relational database, arbitrary precision arithematic, complex arithematic, unit testing, regular expression, XML parsing, C/C++ interfacing and zip compression; which makes it a powerful glue language between lower-level languages and software programs.

Other popular Python implementations include Jython, written in [[Java]], and IronPython, for Microsoft's .Net framework.
[[Category:Information technology]]

==External Links==
[http://www.python.org/ Python Software Foundation]

Soup

2007-04-19T14:08:24Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Hellowrld (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

{{stub}}

A food created by boiling one or more ingredients in water, stock or broth. Unless it's gazpacho.

== Popular Varieties ==
*Chicken Noodle
*[[Tomato]]
*Minestrone
*Chili

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Deaf

2007-04-19T14:08:23Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Hellowrld (Talk); changed back to last version by Vossy

A person who is '''deaf''' has lost their sense of [[hearing]], while they still may retain an ability to speak.

The Parable of the Sower

2007-04-19T13:56:42Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Hereheis (Talk); changed back to last version by Rob Pommer

[[Matthew]] 13:3-9 (KJV) 
vs 3 "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; 
vs 4 "And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up; 
vs 5 "Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth; and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth; 
vs 6 "And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 
vs 7 "And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them; 
vs 8 "But other fell into good ground, and brough forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. 
vs 9 "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." 

Matthew 13:18-23 (KJV) 
vs 18 "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 
vs 19 "When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which receiveth seed by the way side. 
vs 20 "But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 
vs 21 "Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while; for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 
vs 22 "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 
vs 23 "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-19T08:18:52Z

Tsumetai: /* Article split */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-17T16:38:07Z

Tsumetai: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
#{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
#{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#* 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
#* 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
#{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
#*This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
#The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
#{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
#{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
#{{user|Save Our Values}}
#*No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
#*I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#*Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
#[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
#*18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
#{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
#{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
#{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
#{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
#{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Aschlafly}} Complaint removed by {{user|TK}}. No action taken --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

George Washington

2007-04-17T14:57:03Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by LiberalHo (Talk); changed back to last version by Additioner

[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|500px|right]]
'''George Washington''' (1732-1799) was the unanimously elected 1st President of the [[United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref> He was also a devout [[Christian]], with his adopted daughter once stating that "if you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref>

Washington is perhaps the only person other than [[Jesus]] to decline such enormous worldly power by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years. Towards that end, he sought to emulate the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Greek leader [[Cincinattus]], a comparison that is truly testament to Washington's greatness, and one that drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in England, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in [[New York city| New York city's]] [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

He was born on February 22, 1732 to Augustine and Mary Washington. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, George Washington]], Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1986. </ref>

[[Image:George washington 3.jpg|left|thumb]]
Washington bravely led the colonists in revolt against the unjust British government, and in its place established a new government. Fighting against the vastly more powerful British army, Washington lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution until winning at Trenton and Princeton, and then lost most battles afterwards until ultimately prevailing at Yorktown with the help of a new contingent of French troops.

Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency." Comments such as this one have led many modern scholars to conclude that Washington was in fact a deist rather than a Christian.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Washington declared in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref>

On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems and the cherry tree story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favourite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all- conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honourable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

John Kerry

2007-04-17T14:57:00Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by LiberalHo (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

[[Image:Johnkerry04.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''John Forbes Kerry''' (b. December 11, 1943) is the junior United States Senator from [[Massachusetts]] where he has been one of the most [[liberal]] senators<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm</ref><ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm</ref> since 1984. In 2004, he ran an unsuccessful bid for the [[United States of America|United States]] [[President of the United States of America|presidency]] as the [[Democratic Party]]'s nominee, losing to [[Republican Party|Republican]] incumbent president [[George W. Bush]]. Kerry is currently the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

As a U.S. Navy officer Kerry briefly spent time in Vietnam. His service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. Some of Kerry's fellow soldiers believe his wounds were self-inflicted.<ref>[http://www.learnedhand.com/kerryunfitepilogue.htm John Kerry - Unfit For Command]</ref>

John Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed. {{fact}} Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the Purple Heart after being turned down by his own commanding officer.

Kerry belonged to Vietnam Veterans Against the War ([[VVAW]]), where he supported the anti-war movement.

Controversially referring to US servicemen in Vietnam as having been sent "''to die for the biggest mistake in history''," Kerry alleged that the military had "''created a monster''" in the form of violence-prone American soldiers, and recounted that soldiers had personally recollected stories of having "''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads''," of Vietnamese citizens and rampaging across Vietnam "''[razing] villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan''". That these acts were "''not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command''."

On NBC's ''Meet The Press'' in 1971, Kerry was asked whether he had personally committed atrocities in Vietnam. He responded:

:"''There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.''"

Kerry voted for the Iraq War in 2002, vacillated on the issue during his 2004 presidential campaign, and now says, "There's nothing - nothing - in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/mistakes-and-responsibili_b_31482.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:US Senators|Kerry, John]]
[[Category:Political people]]

Benjamin Franklin

2007-04-17T14:56:59Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by LiberalHo (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790) was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker. He became a newspaper editor, printer, merchant, and philanthropist in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]. He was one of the most prominent of [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founders]] and early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He was [[ambassador]] to [[France]], and also he is on the $100 dollar bill. Benjamin Franklin was a prolific inventor, he invented the [[Franklin Stove]], swivel chair, and the [[bifocal]] and also discovered the existence of [[electricity]] with an experiment involving a key attached to the tail of a kite being flown in a lightning storm. Benjamin Franklin was considered by many, a truly a great American.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity travelled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge—creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

''The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin'' (an unfinished work) was chosen by Harvard president Charles W. Eliot to be the first that selection in the Harvard Classics<ref>The Harvard Classics, also known as "Dr. Eliot's Five-foot Shelf," was the result of a speech in which he said that the elements of a liberal education could be obtained from a set of books that would fit on a five-foot shelf; an enterprising publisher challenged him to select the set of books, and published them as ''The Harvard Classics.''</ref> The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica said "his Autobiography... unquestionably ranks among the few great autobiographies ever written."<ref>Webster, Richard (1911), "Benjamin Franklin." The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, v. 11, pp. 24-30</ref>. Mark Twain took a less reverent view:
:[Franklin]'s simplest acts, also, were contrived with a view to their being held up for the emulation of boys forever—boys who might otherwise have been happy. With a malevolence which is without parallel in history, he would work all day, and then sit up nights, and let on to be studying algebra by the light of a smoldering fire, so that all other boys might have to do that also, or else have Benjamin Franklin thrown up to them. Not satisfied with these proceedings, he had a fashion of living wholly on bread and water, and studying astronomy at meal-time—a thing which has brought affliction to millions of boys since, whose fathers had read Franklin's pernicious biography.<ref>Twain, Mark (1870), "The Late Mr. Franklin"</ref>

He was called a [[Deist]] because he was a free thinker who did not take the miracles in the [[Bible]] literally. However, unlike the deists who viewed God as the "clockmaker" who wound up the universe and left, Franklin believed in God's active Providence in human affairs. But although Franklin wrote widely, he rarely made statements associated with principles of Deism. Instead, Franklin made a passionate plea for saying prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:Mr. President [George Washington] ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'

:I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

The above quotation demonstrates that Benjamin Franklin was not a [[deist]] when he participated in the [[Constitutional Convention]] in 1787, as deists do not believe in the "assistance of Heaven" or that "God governs in the affairs of men." Franklin passed away less than three years after his statement, so it seems unlikely that his views changed further.

Franklin himself clearly states in his autobiography that he was a deist earlier in his life, though he later came to doubt its use. "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of these having wronged me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith’s conduct towards me (who was another freethinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful."<ref>''The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin,'' in ''The Harvard Classics,'' P. F. Collier, 1909, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC07236932&id=Mi0LAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA6-IA1&lpg=PA6-IA1&dq=autobiography+of+benjamin+franklin&as_brr=1#PPA57,M1 p. 57]; also available from Project Gutenberg as [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/148 etext #148], search on "deist."</ref>

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In his 1749 ''Proposals relating to the education of youth in Pensilvania[sic],'' he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern.<ref>Franklin, Benjamin (1749), ''Proposals relating to the education of youth in Pensilvania.'' Franklin and Hall.[http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/printableformat.cfm?coll=printedbooks&subcoll=franklin_youth&filename=franklin_youth_body0016.sid&pagePosition=20 online page image] [http://www.archives.upenn.edu/primdocs/1749proposals.html Online searchable html text]</ref>

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, "those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both," a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==Franklin's "Creed"==
In adulthood, on March 9, 1790, shortly before his death, he wrote, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:
:Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received many corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect Soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has good consequences, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not observe that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any Marks of his displeasure."<ref>''The Writings of Benjamin Franklin,'' Macmillan and Co., 1907, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC07368016&id=IkQBIcYzzUEC&pg=RA2-PA84&lpg=RA2-PA84&dq=%22As+to+Jesus+of+Nazareth,+my+Opinion+of+whom+you+particularly+desire%22#PRA2-PA84,M1 p. 84]</ref>

This quote does not reflect the views of [[deism]].

In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin described his upbringing and continuing respect for Christianity as follows:

:From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes.

:My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible.

==''Ben and Me''==
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:political people]]

==Writings of Benjamin Franklin Online==
:[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale editon of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
:[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
:[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

Alexis de Tocqueville

2007-04-17T14:56:56Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by LiberalHo (Talk); changed back to last version by Jrssr5

[[Image:Alexis de tocqueville.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Alexis Clérel de Tocqueville''' (1805-1859) was a [[French]] historian who published an insightful review of the [[United States]] entitled ''Democracy in America'' (1835), based on a nine month tour of the young country. It remains the most comprehensive treatise of American society to this day.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-16&view=View</ref>

:Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention .... In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united.

De Tocqueville further wrote:

:The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other .... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion.

He published a second volume of ''Democracy in America'' in 1840, in which he described:

:Christianity has therefore retained a strong hold on the public mind in America ... In the United States ... Christianity itself is a fact so irresistibly established, that no one undertakes either to attack or to defend it.

== Writings ==

*Democracy in America
*Souvenirs
*The Old Regime and the Revolution

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:biographies]]

Webster's Dictionary

2007-04-17T14:56:51Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by LiberalHo (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

On April 14, 1828, [[Noah Webster]] completed his 26-year project and published his first dictionary. It had 30,000 new definitions and American spellings that gave a young nation a linguistic identity.

It was an unprofitable project. George and Charles Merriam later acquired rights to it.

The Webster Dictionary defined "Property" as:<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-14&view=View</ref>

:The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth ... It is one of the greatest blessings of civil society that the property of citizens is well secured.

In his original preface, Webster stated:

:In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed ... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. ... To that great and benevolent Being ... who has borne me and my manuscripts in safety across the Atlantic, and given me strength and resolution to bring the work to a close, I would present the tribute of my most grateful acknowledgments.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
:[http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online]
[[Category:book]]

RMS Titanic

2007-04-17T14:56:48Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by LiberalHo (Talk); changed back to last version by Scorpion

[[Image:Rms2.jpg|thumb|300px|right|R.M.S. ''Titanic'', April 10, 1912.]]
'''R.M.S.''Titanic''''' was a luxury passenger liner which sank after striking an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912, while on its maiden voyage from [[Southampton]], England, to New York City, killing 1,517 passengers and crew. The men allowed women and children to go first in filling the lifeboats. This disaster has been the subject of films, plays, literature, and scientific scrutiny.

==Description==
''Titanic'' was built to sail the highly-competitive North Atlantic route by White Star Line. Its chief competitor was Cunard, whose vessels recently garnered attention for their speed and luxury. Designed and built by the Belfast firm Harland and Wolff, ''Titanic'' was at the time of her launch and outfitting the largest ship afloat: its gross tonnage was 46,329 tons, and displaced 66,000 tons fully-laden; it was 882.5 feet long and 92.5 feet across the beam. For safety it was built with a double-bottom hull, which was further divided into sixteen watertight compartments, which would not affect the ship's stability if four were flooded.

==Maiden voyage==
''Titanic'' left Southampton on April 10, 1912, picking up additional passengers at Cherbourg, France, and Queenstown (now Cobh), Ireland, before heading out into the Atlantic. At 11:40 pm on April 14, the ship was about 400 miles south of Newfoundland when it collided with an iceberg, rupturing six watertight compartments on the starboard side, resulting in flooding of the bow, and eventually flooding each watertight compartment aft until the ship broke apart at the surface and sank at 2:20 am on April 15. The 706 survivors were rescued by the Cunard liner ''Carpathia'', which was more than 50 miles away when it first heard the distress calls; she arrived some eighty minutes after the ''Titanic'' went down.

==Passengers==

Several of the wealthiest and most prominent persons in the world were passengers on the Titanic for its prestigious maiden voyage. To their credit, they voluntarily went down with the ship and died rather than take a spot on a lifeboat from others.

A full passenger list is available that highlights who survived and who did not.[http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whoweare/exhibits/titanic/p2.htm]

Prominent Americans who went down with the ship included Mr. Benjamin Guggenheim, of the family that donated the Guggenheim Museum of modern art in New York City, Major Archibald Butt, a military aide to President Taft, and Colonel J.J. Astor, whose great grandfather was the wealthiest American prior to the Civil War. Colonel J.J. Astor was an inventor and science fiction writer who helped build three great hotels in New York City: the Astoria (now the Waldorf-Astoria), the Knickerbocker, and the St. Regis.[http://www.britannica.com/titanic/astor.html]

==Inquiries==
Inquiries conducted in both Great Britain and the United States determined a number of factors which contributed to the loss of the ship and passengers.

The watertight compartments were designed without capping at the top; water filling the six ruptured compartments pulled the bow of the ship down far enough that water spilled over the top of the next compartment in line. ''Titanic'' also had 16 standard lifeboats and 4 collapsibles, with enough combined space to carry 1,178 passengers, far short of the 2,224 persons aboard; many of the lifeboats were lowered down the side only partialy filled with passengers (many of those remaining onboard initially believed the ship to be "unsinkable"). Although the number of lifeboats was determined to be inadequate, [http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepRec.php#a2] the Titanic had in actuality exceeded the British Board of Trade's lifeboat regulations, which had been written down for much smaller ships.

Both inquiries also determined that part of the blame for the high loss of passengers rested with Captain Stanley Lord of the liner ''Californian'', which was stopped for the night by an ice field some twenty miles from ''Titanic''. The board members alleged that ''Californian'' could have aided ''Titanic'' had its radio operator been on duty after 11:00 pm, and able to hear its distress signals. Indeed, it was determined that officers on the bridge of the ''Californian'' had seen distress lights from what they considered to be a "large passenger steamer", keeping under observation until the lights vanished after 2:00 am, but doing nothing further than that [http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepCalifornian.php].

Of the passengers who went into the water, only six were pulled out alive, and only by efforts of surviving officers in several boats going through a sea of bodies. Hypothermia killed the remainder, as the water was about 29 degrees farenheit. Many of those who perished came from wealthy, prominent families in Europe and America, among them the heirs to the Straus fortune and the owners of Macy's department store in New York City. The disaster also had its heroes, such as the ship's band assembled on the stern in order to keep remaining passengers calm; and the "Unsinkable" Molly Brown, who forcibly took the tiller away from a rowboat crewman and forced everyone in her lifeboat to go back for people in the water. [http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic_victims/][http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5]

As a result of the loss of ''Titanic'', in 1913 the first International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea was opened in London, England. Among the rules drawn up were requirements that each voyage hold lifeboat drills; that every ship have lifeboat space for each person onboard; and ships maintain a 24-hour radio watch. The International Ice Patrol was also created to keep watch on North Atlantic sea lanes and give ships adequate warnings of icebergs found. The United States Congress also passed the Wireless Ship Act in 1912; it stipulated that all vessels carrying more than 50 people and traveling more than two hundred miles off the coast carry a wireless capable of at least a 100-mile range.

==''Titanic'' found==
[[Image:5462536r.jpg|right|thumb|Titanic's bow as seen from the Russian MIR I submersible.]]
The wreck was found on September 1, 1985 at 41°46′ N 50°14′ W, under 13,000 feet of water, by an American/French team led by Dr. Robert Ballard of Woods Hole Institute and Jean-Louis Michel of Ifremer. Remote submersibles photographed the wreckage, which was in two pieces lying upright, confirming some witness accounts of the ship breaking in two at the surface. Further explorations by Ballard and Ifremer could not find evidence of a long gash caused by the iceberg and cited on the original reports; instead it was postulated that a series of rivet popping combined with separation of seams and brittle fracturing in the hull plating allowed the water to rush in.

==In Popular Culture==

Books and novels have been written about the ''Titanic'' ever since its infamous sinking. The most well-known of these novels is ''[[A Night to Remember]]''. In 1997, director James Cameron produced the highest-grossing film in history, ''[[Titanic (1997 film)|Titanic]]''. However, this film is inaccurate in several areas. For one thing, it depicted the men on board as cowardly. In real life, most of them willingly stood aside while the women and children got into the lifeboats. In the film, they had to be held back at gunpoint, and two were killed. It also showed an officer shooting himself in the head to avoid freezing to death. It also depicts Captain Edward Smith dying in the wheel room. This also is inaccurate, because several survivor accounts actually mention him swimming in the water, encouraging those clinging to a nearby capsized lifeboat before drowning.

==Further reading==
*Ballard, Robert D. ''The Discovery of the Titanic'' Warner Books, New York, (1995)
*Butler, Daniel Allen. ''Unsinkable: The Full Story of RMS Titanic'', Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA (1998).
*Collins, L. M. ''The Sinking of the Titanic: The Mystery Solved'' Souvenir Press, London (2003)
*Gardener, R & van der Vat, D ''The Riddle of the Titanic'' Orion, London (1995)
*Kentley, Eric. ''Discover the Titanic'', DK Inc, New York (1997)
*Lord, Walter. ''A Night to Remember'', Bantam, New York (1997).
*Lynch, Donald and Marschall, Ken. ''Titanic: An Illustrated History'', Hyperion, New York (1995)
*Marcus, Geoffrey. ''The Maiden Voyage'', Buccaneer Books, New York (1991)
*Pellegrino, Charles R. ''Her Name, Titanic'' Avon, New York (1990)
*Wade, Wyn Craig. ''The Titanic: End of a Dream.'' Penguin Books, New York (1986)
*Wels, Susan. ''Titanic: Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner'', Time-Life, New York (1997)

==Links==
*[http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/USReport/AmInqRep03.php United States inquiry]
*[http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOT01.php Great Britain inquiry]
*[http://www.titanichistoricalsociety.org Titanic Historical Society]
*[http://www.paullee.com/titanic/index.html Titanic essays and links]
*[http://titanic.deep-ice.com/ Titanic Archive]
*[http://www.titanic-titanic.com/ Titanic-Titanic.com]
*[http://www.titanic-online.com/ RMS Titanic, Inc] The official ''Titanic'' archive.
*[http://www.atlanticliners.com/titanic_home.htm ''Titanic Home'' at Atlantic Liners.]
*[http://news.titanic.org.uk/ Titanic News Headlines]
*[http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/ Encyclopedia Titanica]
[[category:history]]

User talk:Westsuffolk

2007-04-17T14:45:32Z

Tsumetai:

Please don't use the site to advertise.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:41, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:This user had a previous account used for the same purpose, which I blocked for a week. If it continues, I'd recommend an infinite block. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Is evolution a scientific theory?

2007-04-17T14:06:12Z

Tsumetai: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The [[Theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory which explains how purely natural processes brought about the full variety of species of life on Earth, including human beings.

:Evolution employs the same methodology as any other science. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Evolution is not a scientific theory. It is just a guess, wishful thinking or an atheistic ideology.
:Evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a scientific fact. It has been shown to happen (As with the [http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html| Galapagos finches]). What is still open for debate is whether it is the process which has led to the diversity of life we see today, or whether God created this diversity. What is no longer debatable is that within this universe (which god may or may not have created,) the phenotype and genotype of populations change from generation to generation in response to changes in their environment. That is evolution. Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, there's no denying that it happens. [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:: The Galapagos finches were not evolution. They were an example of microevolution, which is a tried and true scientific theory. Macroevolution is a shaky hypothesis if anything at all. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Can you point to a single mechanism of macroevolution that isn't also a mechanism of microevolution? What exactly is the difference? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is a Scientific Theory?==

If you can clearly define what exactly is meant by a scientific theory, and have that definition accepted by the whole community, then this discussion might, just might, make some sort of sense. However, in the absence of a generally agreed definition of what constitutes a scientific theory, all that will happen is that this discussion will descend into the usual rants from both sides, quoting from Dawkins, AnswersinGenesis etc. and no-one will be any the wiser.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 09:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Note the definition from Conservapedia, which gives FIVE criteria for a scientific theory:

1. '''A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. It is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena.'''
: Evolution is clearly more than just a conjecture or hypothesis, as it is at least plausible, otherwise no-one would have taken it seriously during the past 150 years.

2. '''To be considered scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.'''
: Evolution is falsifiable: if evolution is true, we should not find human remains and dinosaur bones in the same bed. If we do then the theory is wrong and would need to be revised.

3. '''Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena.'''
: Evolution as a theory is over 150 years old, has changed over time and has been modified via (eg Dawkins) to be more consistent with data, has so far not been shown to be false, and is able to make predictions, such as the age of a particular fossil, or what will happen in a particular environment if a preditor is removed.

4. '''A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. '''
:Evolution is still contraversial (see most of the stuff on Conservapedia), it has some experimental support, but it does have a very strong evidential base.

5. '''Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as String Theory. '''
:Evolution started out as being speculative, but is now considered by the majority of the scientific community to be very well confirmed.

I can therefore state categorically that according to the definition of a Scientific Theory as defined within Conservapedia, that Evolution IS a scientific theory, of that there is absolutely no doubt.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 10:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Is evolution a scientific theory?

2007-04-17T13:18:12Z

Tsumetai: /* YES */

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-17T12:51:36Z

Tsumetai: /* Pornography's Role!? */

{{debate}}
I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into [[hard-core pornography]]? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Um...might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only leathal when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.
:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DoonTheWater

2007-04-17T12:27:54Z

Tsumetai:

Careful Now !

Down with that sort of thing

:Hey, a Father Ted fan. Welcome :) [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Information

2007-04-17T11:42:30Z

Tsumetai: /* Attribution */

== Attribution ==

With such a controversial topic it is essential to add proper attribution to claims. Unless you can objectively prove that information can only come into existence by intelligent means, then it is inappropriate to state something as fact. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Science does not "prove", but can succeed or fail to disprove. Can you dispute (disprove) the claim? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Perhaps we'd do better to defer this discussion until we've got a neutral description of what information theory actually states. Once we've got that down, then we could discuss its implications. Thoughts? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::A neutral definition would be helpful. However, attribution would still be useful anyway. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is there such a thing as a neutral description? {{unsigned|Philip J. Rayment}}

::::I think so, yes. We all agree on the definitions of Shannon information, or Kolmogorov complexity, or whatever. The conclusions one draws from the field are another matter. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I actually meant to question the possibility of a neutral description ''in this particular case'', as it impinges on people's worldviews, unlike Shannon information, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Oh. No, whether or not intelligence can derive from anything but intelligence is probably going to remain an issue of contention. But having a neutral description of the basics down might help resolve it. As it stands, it's not even clear what the claim is supposed to mean. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

SNP

2007-04-17T10:56:13Z

Tsumetai: Redirecting to Scottish National Party

#REDIRECT [[Scottish National Party]]

Talk:Information

2007-04-17T10:49:34Z

Tsumetai: /* Attribution */

Marijuana

2007-04-17T10:42:18Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Noobhead (Talk); changed back to last version by MountainDew

'''Marijuana''' is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]]. It comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]].

The effects of marijuana can include a feeling of euphoria, short-term memory loss, mild hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Marijuana advocates and many scientists have claimed that it has medicinal benefits, particularly for pain relief and appetite stimulation (''"the munchies"'') among those with a terminal illness. Doctors have found that other drugs can also deliver these benefits but with considerable side effects. Former Conservative Law Enforcement officials, [[liberals]], and [[libertarians]] have rallied to decriminalize the drug<ref>[http://www.leap.cc]</ref>. Members of the [[Rastafari movement]] use it as a sacrament.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Macroevolution

2007-04-17T08:19:55Z

Tsumetai: /* Neutral Evolution */

== First Arg ==
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"

So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition ''Origin of Species'' (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks. [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Ray, the question was completely and utterly irrelevant, but if you insist I'll answer anyways(why I'm bothering I don't know)- see for example Dobzhansky Pavlovsky's 1971 paper- "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" Nature 23:289-292. Note furthermore, that speciation is so well demonstrated that AIG, one of the world's largest creationist ministries lists claiming speciation has not occured as an example of an argument that creationists should ''not'' use.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp]. In any event, this is all not germane to my original point- that the claim made here that mutation cannot increase genetic material is so wrong that even AIG agrees that that is inaccurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Are you claiming that speciesiation has never been observed in the lab? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::: So you have one experiment ''Drosophila'' that justifies the extraordinary and main claim of ToE (= macroevolution)? Why not a 100 or even 15? Are you telling me the main assertion of ToE has ONE questionable experiment to justify its existence? So much for experimentation determining facts. This is why we know the Emperor is naked. And by the way, we know that information in the genetic code can be read out but nothing can be written in, which still leaves us wanting an explanation as to where new information comes from?

:::[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:For that matter, ''why'' is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The statement ''The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position'' is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

Since this article is bound to be rather contentious, I'm going to explain my changes here, and invite other editors to do likewise:

#"unproven theory" is redundant
#"transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism" is simply wrong; is man ''completely'' different from other apes? No, of course not; we're all apes, all primates, all mammals, all animals, etc. etc.

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

#"Clade" defined clade.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fleshing out this page==

I am currently working on fleshing out the page a bit. Please be kind as I am adding a little at a time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative's revert and locking==

Could you explain why you reverted this page and locked it while it was posted that it was being work on?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:There is nothing that states that evolution is fact in what I wrote conservative. I stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process within evolution. That is not stating that it was a fact nor that evolution was a fact. Please unlock this page and allow for further editing like the VSA said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Neutral Evolution==
If the page was unprotected I could have finished with the editing so that you could see how Neutral evolution is a mech. of macroevolution. However since the page is still locked we nonsysops can not touch it.

Thanks Hojimachong for reverting the page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Post the complete edit here and I'll put it in if I think it does show that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai has reinserted neutral evolution bit, with the comment, "''selectively neutral doesn't mean no change to the phenotype''". No, but surely it doesn't mean that it constitutes '''macro'''evolution. Anyway, I'll wait for TimS' extra material. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I will continue when I have the chance on the edit. I am on lunch right now. Tsumetai is correct in that neutral evolution does not mean a lack of change in the phenotype, an example in laymans terms, hair color is a neutral change in the phenotype. A single neutral change does not have an impact on the speciation but it is the accumilation of these phenotype changes that makes the difference and thus the impact on speciation. That is why neutral evolution is considered a mech. of macroevolution. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not all neutral drift is macroevolution, but it's still a mechanism that contributes significantly to the process. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'll need more convincing than that. A change in hair colour could be no stretch of the imagination be considered '''macro'''evolution. Perhaps the following analogy is bad, but if mutations could be rated according to their impact, some might be negative (-1), some positive (+1), and some neutral (0). An accumulation of neutral changes (0+0+0+0+0+0)... I think you can see where I'm going there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sure, a string of selectively neutral mutations is itself selectively neutral. But the phenotypic effect of each may be non-zero, so when you add ''those'' together, you can end up with an arbitrarily large phenotypic shift.

:::For that matter, even silent mutations contribute to evolution by providing more variation upon which future mutations can act. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Change below the species level, basically. Any given genetic mechanism can contribute to both micro and macro. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::But if a mutation is neutral, then surely it is below the species level, almost if not actually by definition? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Probably, although there are probably ways to achieve speciation through purely neutral shifts; think changes in sexual selection which lead to a segregation of the population while leaving the net fitness unchanged. But the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.' They tend to contribute to both. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==
When you refer something to the panel you cannot delete all material that YOU YOURSELF object to, and then protect it. That is an abuse of power.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: I demand that you re-instate your content and THEN protect it. Articles should be preserved in the status quo under appeal, NOT subject to your caprices.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Conservative, you have a lot of people allied against you on this. It is improper to modify a page that has been submitted to the Panel.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for him. He got away with it on the Theory of Evolution page. Even after the panel ruled, he got away with making an important substantive change (removing the link to The Origin of Species itself) without even a slap on the wrist; the only comment made on that ''at all'' by anyone with power, was the Panel mischaracterizing it is him adding a book to the recommended reading list. Nothing is improper for Conservative. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
CPWebmaster, this has been submitted to the Panel. It should either be blanked or kept in the condition it was prior to its submission. That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroevolution&oldid=106418 this version].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sysops, this matter deserves attention. The page should be unlocked asap, and unreferred to the Panel, or it should be reverted to its state prior to submission.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==References section needed==
Can someone please add a references section to this article? I will put the appropriate text here so you can see how to do it. (This will also create such a section here, I think.)

<nowiki>==References==</nowiki> 
<nowiki><references/></nowiki>

:There were references before the revert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:AFD Homer Simpson

2007-04-16T16:29:15Z

Tsumetai:

''No intellectual content'' I'd go careful with that. You might end up having to AFD many other articles too. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: Since when do encyclopedias only contain "intellectual content"? By definition an encyclopedia contains information on as much as possible --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That's not accurate. An encyclopedia contains information that is ''within a definable scope''. The definition of that scope is the sole prerogative of its senior editors.

:: [[Wikipedia]] might want to do a page on every silly [[television|TV]] show that has ever released. But at Conservapedia, we have the right to be a tad more selective.

:: Show me that ''The Simpsons'' will be a TV classic, and define for me how you would judge a classic as worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I'll reconsider.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Can you name another television entertainment show that has been on for 18 seasons? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 12:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know about seasons, but Dr Who currently stands at over 700 episodes... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T14:56:39Z

Tsumetai:

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T14:56:14Z

Tsumetai:

[[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

User talk:CPanel/Archive1

2007-04-16T14:55:57Z

Tsumetai: creating archive of defunct page

That hardly sounds like a panel of objective experts...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is it supposed to be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have SERIOUS issues with the "anonymous members" bit. Members in this position should HAVE to be marked as such. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::OOO, OOO, can I be a member? I'll be ever so good! I promise I won't let my high school studies, lack of life experience or religious brain washing get in the way of making good fair decisions! Pwetty Please? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It has already been set up as anonymous and it is unlikely to change. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 16:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:So, a few anonymous Panel members could push their own point of view, and once it gets pushed back towards whatever passes as "neutrality" here, the Panel members could declare that this is a major conflict and should be handled... by the Panel. And nobody would of the conflict of interest. How convenient! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: how do we know a panel even exists! This looks serious bent, like a banana republic wiki! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Sunlight is the best disinfectant. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"We do not censor in any way"

It is a shame that many of your editors do not agree with that policy, see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=56791&oldid=48604 for one incidence of very silly deletion. If you ''truly'' did not censor you would not keep closing the facility to create accounts.
:Well, to be fair, we are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia because (1) we do not follow the GFDL and (2) Andy made it a rule.
:However, there is censoring going on. Look at Conservative's edits that removed entire sections (with cites) simply because he didn't want his little propaganda piece to be cluttered with silly things like science. Or heck, look at some of the locked articles and their histories in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::How do we know that these panel members are up to date on the "major conflicts" they recieve? Do they actively edit here and follow the ongoing debates? What's to stop them from becoming another [[user:conservative]] or [[user:scorpion]]? And they should definitely '''not''' be anonymous. It's easy to hide behind anonymimity (sp, too lazy to look it up for real), but it takes a real man (or woman) to stand up and declare "I did it." [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] is NOT a member of The Panel and no-one should contact [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] on his talk page or via email regarding ANY decisions that may come up for review by The Panel. Besides, bribery is unethical. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think having the homeschoolers form the panel is a wonderful idea. Harken the words of our Lord and savior himself:
::"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14)
::"Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." (Mark 7:27)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 09:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why Conservapedia need to include the "mainstream" view of evolution... somewhere. ==

It is often possible to agree on "facts about opinions." For example:
*''regardless of whether the phlogiston theory is or is not true,'' it is a fact that it was the dominant scientific theory of combustion from about 1718, when Stahl developed it, until 1777, when Lavoisier published "Sur la combustion en général."
*''regardless of the medical effectiveness of bleeding,'' it is a fact that at the time of [[George Washington]]'s final illness it was the generally accepted medical treatment for many kinds of illness.
*''regardless of whether or not the Apollo astronauts actually landed on the Moon,'' it is a fact that a large number of people—about 6% of the U. S. population, according to one poll—believe that the landing was a hoax or deception and that it never occurred... and it is also a fact that most Americans believe they really did land on the moon.

Now, with regard to the theory of evolution, there are a number of facts that we should be able to agree on, ''regardless of whether or not we agree with the theory of evolution.'' One of them is a fact about opinion: just as most scientists once believed in the phlogiston theory; just as most doctors once believed in bleeding as a treatment for illness; just as most Americans now believe that the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon... '''the scientific mainstream of today believes in the theory of evolution.'''

*It is a fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences can be taken to represent "mainstream scientific opinion" in the United States. It is a fact that the AAAS issued [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml a 2002 statement] opining that "The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry.... To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.... the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education."
*It is a fact that about 15% of the questions in the SAT II Biology test are on evolution and diversity, and the "correct" answers reflect the contemporary theory of evolution.
*It is a fact that the New Jersey [http://www.nj.gov/njded/aps/cccs/science/frameworks/horizontal.doc core curriculum standards], on which the HSPA tests are based, assume a knowledge of the contemporary theory of evolution. It imposes specific goals: by grade 12, students are expected to "Explain that through evolution the Earth's present species developed from earlier distinctly different species" and "Explain how the theory of natural selection accounts for extinction as well as an increase in the proportion of individuals with advantageous characteristics within a species."

Conservapedia can ''qualify'' what is said about evolution. Conservapedia can make sure that points of view that are unrepresented or underrepresented elsewhere are given a fair, even a preferential presentation.

But if Conservapedia is going to fulfill the goal of being a "trustworthy" educational research, it needs to present the mainstream opinions on evolution as well as unorthodox opinions. And it needs to present the mainstream opinions so clearly, fairly and accurately that a reader can understand them... and, in particular, a student understand them well enough to know which are intended to be the "correct" answers on examinations that are advised for college applicants and that increasingly are required for high school graduation.

I'd add that what imprisons a mind is the notion that, literally, "everyone else believes it." (Orwell: "Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.") To liberate it, it is sufficient to make it clear that "''not'' everyone else believes it." It's not necessary to go to the opposite extreme. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this to be such a useful statement that I am going to steal it for reprint on my page.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 21:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would endorse this view, Dpbsmith. In order to understand the theory itself and it's criticism, people need to be presented with an actual view of what the theory of evolution actually states, and draw their own conclusions (though most will probably come here with preconcieved notions). My $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
::Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
::About it and about: but evermore
::Came out by the same Door as in I went."—The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I entered a submission to the panel. I linked to this argument, AmesG's petition, and Hoji's alternative language. The ball needed to start rolling on this. Feel free to add to the petition [[Conservapedia:Panel/Submit]][[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please explain ==

Could you please explain the reasoning behind your recent bizarre decision on the Theory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Donut Page ==

Could the panel please adjudicate on the dispute that is currently taking place on the donut page?

The various factions cannot seem to agree on whether donuts need holes in order to qualify as donuts. For myself I have doubts about whether there is such a thing as an elongated donut (although I have been told that a "maple bar" qualifies).

We would appreciate your guidance on this one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

: See [[User:Hojimachong/Donut to CPanel]]. Thanks, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Panel

2007-04-16T14:54:52Z

Tsumetai: ...and redirecting

#REDIRECT [[User talk:CPanel]]

Conservapedia:Panel

2007-04-16T14:54:13Z

Tsumetai: ...and redirecting

#REDIRECT [[User:CPanel]]

Talk:Conservapedia Panel

2007-04-16T14:53:12Z

Tsumetai: fixing broken redirect

#REDIRECT [[User talk:CPanel]]

Conservapedia Panel

2007-04-16T14:52:51Z

Tsumetai: fixing broken redirect

#REDIRECT [[User:CPanel]]

Sysop:Talk/Archive 1

2007-04-16T13:51:32Z

Tsumetai: /* Pop celebrity pages */

== A hangout place for Conservapedia Sysops ==

(Sysops: please mark this page as watched)

You might wonder who our Sysops are. We have 33 Sysops. Only one of them is related to me, and we often disagree with each other.

I first met most of our Sysops online through this website. Our Sysops reflect all political views, and nearly all time zones. We have several from Britain, several from Australia and at least one from Canada.

Some of our Sysops are high school and college students.

Sysops are promoted based on initiative and merit, not ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== User:SirCliff ==
I've blocked this user indefinitely, mainly on the basis of an article that he created titled Membrum Virile and with content claiming that it was an ancient lay Catholic order with some unusual practices. However, all I can find on the topic via Google is that Membrum Virile is a reference to the penis.

His other [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SirCliff edits] do appear from a quick look to be reasonably accurate if a bit flippant, but I wonder if someone should investigate them a bit closer. Also of some concern is the favourable post about that article that [[user:CatWatcher]] put on SirCliff's [[user talk:SirCliff|talk page]].

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I'll investigate further. It's fine to block an account when in doubt, as we can always unblock it further investigation warrants reinstatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:He has several sockpuppets. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 17:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vulgar metaphors on the page [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] ==
Ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the above page is getting increasingly vulgar. Here is the latest example:

:Vulgarity TerryH? Are you as clueless of the definition of that word as you are of evolution? Please.
: In any case, both Dimensio and Murray are quite right (as was I): evolution does not give a rat's behind whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory.
:Now, what Dawkins writes regarding theology is his own opinion and has no bearing on the science of evolution. As Dimensio says, Dawkins is a piss-poor theologian and his arguments, poor as they are, are his own. In my opinion, both theists and atheists, especially of the rabid variety (Benny Hinn and Richard Dawkins) are intellectual fools: as any deities would exist in the realm of the paranormal, there is no way to either prove nor disprove their existence -- arguing vehemently and vociferously on either side of the equation is a waste of brain cells. Personally, I don't care if deities exist, I'm more concerned with being a good father, good friend, etc. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Urine, ladies and gentlemen? And the pudendum of ''Rattus rattus''? And the saliva of hamsters, which was what I originally replied to and cited as vulgar? (In addition to User NousEpirrhytos, the other offender is User Dimensio.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm too close to this. But if someone is going to use vulgar metaphors, then I think perhaps some short-term blocks would be in order--perhaps for a day or two or three. But rather than take that action unilaterally (because it might appear to be self-serving), I now lay it before you all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Pudendum - The human external genital organs, especially of a woman. Often used in the plural". Explain yourself Terry.

:In any case the use of "behind" in "rat's behind" is a euphemism. I would tell what we would say in Australia but I suspect it might cause trouble. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 08:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps I ought to have said "haunch." In any case, ought we to permit people to use metaphors that speak of urine and haunches and saliva? I thought that minors used this site.

::Oh, and one more thing: shouldn't this page be protected?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Do you mean protected from me? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 08:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:: No obscenity is allowed, even on talk pages. This is an absolute rule. The user above is going to be warned of blocking, at a minimum. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

*Andy, the continued fighting there is permeating the site, and many are just growing weary of a few who just cannot stop arguing the issue. Can't we just lock it all down until the Students come up with an answer? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TerryK, you never cease to amaze me. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 09:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? You should try my Gin Fizzes! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the evolution page was locked until the students address it (they have made progress). If not, feel free to do so. This page is now locked since it is a Sysop page. User NousEpirrhytos has been warned of blocking, and I'll warn User Dimensio next. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::FYI, the ''article'' is locked, but the ''talk'' page is not locked.
::And (*sigh*) I find this next report almost as distasteful as my earlier report on vulgar metaphors. But have any of you had a gander at [[Talk:Theory of evolution#The answer's simple...|this latest]] highly disrespectful side discussion? ''Il Unione Siciliano'', AKA ''La Cosa Nostra'' ("Our Thing")? Please. [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]] is bad enough--but how much blatant disrespect for authority must we tolerate?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The likely problem with this sort of thing is in deciding what is vulgar and what isn't. I know that some things that Americans consider vulgar Australians wouldn't, and vice versa, and some things I consider vulgar other Australians wouldn't (Horace, I know what you are referring to, but personally I wouldn't use that term. By the way, I didn't realise that you were another skip; have you seen the {{tl|Aussie}} template?). Some terms there would be no question about, but other, more borderline ones, might genuinely be considered acceptable by some and not by others. Is there any way of having a Conservapedia standard on what's acceptable and what's not short of drawing up a list of unacceptable terms? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: Guidelines would be fine, we do want to keep the rules and regulations to a minimum here, in contrast with Wikipedia. Sysops have discretion and authority, and we do ban obscenity. Generally unintellectual comments are disfavored. A comment like "Piss-poor" wouldn't be tolerated in a good university homework assignment, so why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::I smell a [[Conservapedia:Standard]] emerging:
::*unintellectual comments are disfavored
::*good university homework assignment
::I'd translate this into a guideline as, "Avoid unintellectual article comments and strive to make articles of a quality which is on par with a good university homework assignment." I'll settle for a good high school homework assignment, especially when starting an article (see [[stub]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Namespace Filters for Contrib Pages ==
Ladies and gents, can't we have a namespace filter for the special pages on user contributions? How can we judge an editor's substantive contributions when, half the time, we can't even ''find'' any among the most recent fifty contribs, because that editor has spent so much time getting hot and heavy in the Talk or User talk namespaces? I realize that this might constitute a valid criticism of that editor--and I intend no [[special pleading]] on my own part for having begun in this project largely by engaging in futile and unseemly flame wars (for which I apologize). But in all fairness, we ought to be able to find the pages that any user has made substantive (i.e., non-minor) edits to, or better yet created, so that we can better judge the value of his contributions to the project.

I propose that when you look up contributions, you have the option of searching either all namespaces, or just the main (article) namespace, or any other namespace you want to pick. And if we have that capability already, I'd like to know what I'm missing, and suggest that the method appear on this page so that every sysop knows how to conduct such a filtered search.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Directions Provided ===
Well, after publishing the above, I got the instructions--and from [[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]. Give that man credit for a very helpful suggestion.

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, whenever we search ''any'' page for user contributions, keywords, or whatever, we can select either all namespaces, or any particular namespace. The filter appears immediately below the set of links to various logs. The minor edits still present a problem--but such filtering is a powerful tool indeed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Debate Topics Falling Into Main Namespace ==
I hate to tell everybody, but prefixing "Debate:" in front of various debate-topic titles succeeds only in throwing it back into the Main namespace. Somebody needs to create a new, specific namespace for debate topics. The chief benefit would be to allow people to search for debate topics more readily (in case they didn't get added to the Debate Topics page), and to allow those of us who want to judge people's contributions, to separate article edits from debate postings and judge these separately.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

More on this issue, from Sid3050:<blockquote>The problem is not just that the debates are currently bleeding into the mainspace, but also that they will become inaccessible if we create a "Debate"/"Debate talk" namespace set right now. Check out [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Custom_namespaces this link] for reference (just under the first blue-border box). The explanation (from what I gather) is: Right now, we got an article with the full name "Debate:Blah". If we then create "Debate" as a namespace, calling "Debate:Blah" will actually show "Blah in the Debate namespace" instead of "Debate:Blah in the Main namespace" - two quite different things. So a sysop will have to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=&page=&limit=100&offset=0 revert those moves] ''before'' the new namespace is being created. Good news is that there's a "revert" link next to each move. Bad news is that there are many things that have to be reverted.</blockquote>

Something else to consider...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, quoting Sid, and getting help from him, is a real good idea. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::He at least provided good links. As long as I've checked out his information, and found it sound, I'll stand by my recommendation of it. If we allow his record to disqualify anything he says for no better reason than that he said it, then we commit [[ad hominem]] and [[non sequitur]]. Not to mention nasal self-amputation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it at least sounds clever. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Novel Cover Art ==
User [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] has been uploading some book-cover images to Conservapedia. Now I don't have a problem with that, so long as we restrict the use of those images to articles about the books themselves. Under [[United States]] law, such use constitutes [[fair use]]. But the uploader ought to state that explicitly in the image summary when he does an upload.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed! There are many images, seemingly belonging "nowhere". --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest putting the images on watch. Don't delete yet, someone may be working on articles for them. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, especially images of "donuts"! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocked Users ==

Please take special care to protect the pages of blocked users, to prevent vandalism and such. Especially if the ban isn't infinite. Additionally if not protected, it seems to be a posting spot for socks, etc. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sock Ring==

If you review my [[Special:Log/block&user=Tsumetai|recent blocks]], you'll notice a large number of accounts with names on a similar pattern; generally six characters long, first and fourth characters capital letters, the rest random letters/numbers. Each of these accounts shared an IP with at least one other in the same group. If you notice a similar username in the [[Special:Log/newusers|User creation log]], it might be an idea to run them through [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:What is the "check user" function? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::CheckUser allows sysops to see a list of IP addresses used by any given account, and a list of accounts which have used any given IP address. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Update: That makes '''30''' accounts in the last three days. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:This might sound kind of crazy, but I think we're being raided again. Or someone's trying to prepare for a raid and you just shut them down heh.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 9:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Very well done, Tsumetai! I had not caught that myself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Plase Vote on the Policy [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy/Vote|Here]].--[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you had better start communicating. I think if you did, it would be explained to you, so you won't embarrass yourself further. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am Attempting to comunicate here, i am proposing a block policy to make things '''easier''' for everyone. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the best thing to come along about this topic/problem/issue which I've seen since I got here. Regardless of whether or not this policy proposal gets elevated to a guideline, it's an excellent effort. It's also a creative masterwork of compromise and negotiation and balance. It's what *I* wish I had come up with, but I am frankly not a good enough writer to do it. I may not agree with every jot and tittle, but it is '''certainly''' something I can live with; I've already started to try to conform my actions to it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you for the compliment. If there are any changes you would propose please post them on my talk page or the talk page for the proposed policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 20:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, I am happy Ed, you were asked for input. ''Not all of us were''. That is the problem I have with it, same as Andy. And, since it has already been moved to vote, it is '''disingenuous and corrupt''' to make changes after people have voted. Since I am their primary target, and they refuse to communicate with me, but just post public charges and defamation's here, and privately denigrate and disrespect me, I have told Andy I will be fine with it, if he feels the need to remove me, or ask for my resignation. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what I just posted on the talk page for the proposed policy.
::I posted on the [[Conservapedia:Sysops]] Page asking all of the sysops '''including you''' for input [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ASysops&diff=103781&oldid=102137| Here], and I asked you personally for input [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACPAdmin1%2FProposed_Block_Policy&diff=105523&oldid=105515| Here]. I meant to post the first message on your talk page when I posted it on others, but I accidentally missed you. I am doing my best to try to involve you in the development of this policy, but all you have offered so far is insults. Please make suggestions. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of what you think of my proposal, do you see recognize the need to have a block policy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*'''Yes, I do.''' One considered by Andy, Bureaucrats and Sysops and hashed out at least a bit, before springing it publicly. That way keeps people from feeling they have been backed into a corner, Tim. You are so snide! I posted several times in the beginning about needing some codified rules of procedure for Sysops, before and after being made a Sysop. Ask Ed Poor, it is a constant subject of our conversations! Since you only communicate with other "elites", you wouldn't know the great lengths I always go to before blocking others. I check with other Sysops, via IM or email, or in IRC. I check with Andy. And then after all that, along comes "Elite CPAdmin1" and Benjamin, making a snide remark in the summary, and undoing it. And if that wasn't enough, you denigrate me to others, questioning my mental state. You messaged with others about drawing up the "proposed" rules, but excluded others. That is not exactly bridge-building, or being fair. And through all these dozens of posts, you still refuse to make contact, and resolve it, as Ed Poor suggested to you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Malicious Redirect==

Someone has set up right-wing-masturbapedia.com as a redirect to conservapedia.com; take a look [http://forum.scotchandpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7008#p7008 here] for more info. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think there's anything we can do about that... [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No, there really isn't. If they want to spend $5 a month just to do ''that'', I could care less. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is defamation. i will bring this to Andy's attention. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I think the redirect simply sends us new visitors. As said above, if they want to spend their money and time doing that, albeit in an offensive way, I'm not sure why we should care.

:: Thanks to User:Conservative for blocking one of the perpetrators promptly from this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

''It means that, hopefully, someone will some day find a Conservapedia page on Google that points to a right wing masturbapedia URL.''
Copied from blog entry by owner. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's already happening. The redirect is showing up in various Google searches on 'conservapedia + (something else).' One would think DreamHost would have a policy against this. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'd just ignore this. I think it simply attracts attention to Conservapedia. The perpetrators are defeating their own purpose, which even they will realize eventually. That "something else" in Tsumetai's message is probably something our legitimate visitors would not type. Over time Google will drop it also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry, I should have been more clear. That "something else" could be anything at all, or even nothing. Their content is our content, and Google's bots are crawling their URLs. So ''any'' Google search which returns one of our pages ought to return one of theirs too. The only question is how high up their results get. I've already seen a couple on the first page of a search. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't think this is the first time anyone has thought of this. I would expect Google's search engines to recognize this scam and filter it fairly soon. But if not, the perpetrators are using our name without our permission and I think that violates our intellectual property. We'll have them explain themselves to a judge if they want to persist in this. Also, we can tell their ISP and it will stop intellectual property violations that use its machines.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pop celebrity pages ==
Ladies and gents, user {{user|ILikeCookies}} has been making some edits, the wisdom of which I seriously question. These pages concern pop culture celbrities like [[Britney Spears]]. My objections are threefold:
# Pop culture is by nature ephemeral, and I'm not sure that we want to offer that kind of, for lack of a better term, ''fluff'' in our encyclopedia.
# Some of these celebrities conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner, and having articles on them might appear as though we accept their behavior.
# They are living persons, some of whom are in and out of courts of [[law]] all the time. Can't you see the [[lawsuit]]s, [[subpoena]]e, ''et cetera ad nauseam''? [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], you're an attorney. You know what I'm talking about.

For these reasons, I am recommending virtually every one of that user's new pages for deletion.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:You raise a good point. We need to decide whether or not such articles are within the scope of the project. I don't think we need worry about points 2 and 3, however. On point 2, we have an article on Hitler, after all. And on point 3, public figures are generally fair game; we'd have to really cross the line to open ourselves up to a lawsuit. I don't think edits which were promptly reverted would count, either. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Kuiper Belt

2007-04-16T12:07:27Z

Tsumetai:

'''The Kuiper Belt''' is a region of space out beyond the orbit of Neptune. It was discovered by Gerard Kuiper. Objects in the Kuiper Belt are called Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs)

==External Links==

[http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html List of known KBOs]

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T11:57:11Z

Tsumetai: Panel submissions

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop:Talk/Archive 1

2007-04-15T23:11:23Z

Tsumetai: /* Malicious Redirect */

Sysop:Talk/Archive 1

2007-04-15T22:56:09Z

Tsumetai: /* Malicious Redirect */

User:Ed Poor

2007-04-15T15:49:01Z

Tsumetai: /* Salvador Allende */

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User earth sat}}
{{User NoEvo}}
{{User caffeine}}
[[Image:Pcproud.png]]
{{User NoArbBlk}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

[[Category:Wikipedians on Conservapedia|Ed Poor]]
Archives: [[/archive 01|01]] [[/archive 02|02]]


I am a SYSOP on this site.

My interests include history, religion, and science.

If you have any trouble on the site, a question about my edits/blocks/redirects/protects etc. please post on my talk page or email me and I will address them ASAP. I am open to working with everyone who demonstrates a genuine will to improve this site through their work.

{{user|Ed Poor}}

Use Google to search for ''Ed Poor probation''
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Poor+probation]

==NPOV==

Here are the most commonly violated principles of neutral editing at Wikipedia:
* It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
* Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
* Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
*Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] or a vehicle for [[propaganda]] advocacy or [[advertising]].
*A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
* Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

==New Pages==

These are the last 50 articles I started:
#[[Right to life movement]]
#[[Saline abortion]]
#[[Comfort women]]
#[[Silent scream]]
#[[Speech codes]]
#[[Balint Vazsonyi]]
#[[Usage]]
#[[Theory and fact]]
#[[Rastafarianism]]
#[[Wiki way]]
#[[Red link]]
#[[The word]]
#[[Getting Better]]
#[[Brian Mitchell]]
#[[How to write a Conservapedia article]]
#[[Unguided evolution]]
#[[Fidelity]]
#[[Conscientious objector]]
#[[National Center for Science Education]]
#[[Infrared]]
#[[I Have a Dream]]
#[[Paul Simon]]
#[[Political spectrum]]
#[[Infinity]]
#[[Equality]]
#[[Trawl]]
#[[Orbit]]
#[[Deduction]]
#[[Sit-ins at lunch counters]]
#[[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]
#[[Diane Ravitch]]
#[[George Carlin]]
#[[Donkey]]
#[[The Manchurian Candidate]]
#[[Wolves]]
#[[Suffolk Punch]]
#[[Manure]]
#[[Riders of the Purple Sage]]
#[[The Family Man]]
#[[Brainwashing]]
#[[Frank Sinatra]]
#[[To Sir, With Love]]
#[[Strider]]
#[[Hate]]
#[[Methods of contraception]]
#[[Fornication]]
#[[Idiot]]
#[[Ellipse]]
#[[Blood type]]
#[[The Paradoxical Commandments]]
#[[Carbon dioxide]]

==Who do you think you are?==

Q: Is this your personal blog, or what?!

A: No, but it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance.

Q: Isn't that a bit arrogant?

A: Okay, I guess you're right. Perhaps I should be more humble.

==Explanations==

There was a time when Wikipedia was a [[meritocracy]], and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committee's, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.

But I didn't see the [[anti-elitism]] creeping up and choking the life out of the place. [[Larry Sanger]] was right.

My only worry about Conservapedia is that it '''might''' make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Salvador Allende==

As you know, this page has been "protected" by RobS and all references to Augusto Pinochet removed (a rather odd gesture, given that the article on Pinochet makes no bones about Pinochet's involvement in the overthrow of Allende.)

As per your comments via email I would like to restore of the earler version (which mentions the involvment of Pinochet) with these cites:

"The CIA's involvement in the coup was vigorously protested by US leftists, as were the appalling human rights violations committed during and after by the Pinochet regime, among them the murder of one of Allende's most ardent supporters, popular songwriter and musician Victor Jara.

Cites: In September 11 of 1973 the Chilean armed forces attacked La Moneda, the presidential palace in the center of Santiago. Within hours Chile's elected president, Salvador Allende, lay dead (this report concludes that he committed suicide), and a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet took power. ( http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/chile/chile_1993_introeng.html

Victor Lidio JARA MARTINEZ, 40, a popular singer and theater director who was a member of the Central Committee of Communist Youth. A
statement by the Foreign Ministry dated March 27, 1974, in response to a note from the OAS (Organization of American States) Interamerican Human Rights Commission, said, "Victor Jara: Dead. He was killed by snipers who, I repeat, were firing indiscriminately on the armed forces and on the civilian population." This Commission received many credible reports refuting this official story and leading to the conclusion that what
actually happened was quite different. Vicctor Jara was arrested on September 12 on the grounds of the State Technical University were he was
working as a theater director. He was taken to the Chile Stadium, where he was separated from the other people with whom he had been arrested, and detained high up in the stands together with other people considered to be dangerous. Between September 12-15, he was interrogated by army personnel. The the last day Victor Jara was seen alive was September 15. During the afternoon he was taken out of a line of prisoners who were being transferred to the National Stadium. In the early morning of the next day, September 16, shantytown dwellers found his body, along with five others, including that of Litti Quiroga Carvajal, near the Metropolitan Cemetery. As the autopsy report states, Victor Jara died as a result of multiple bullet wounds (44 entry wounds and 32 exit wounds).â€The Commission came to the conviction that he was executed
without due process of law by government agents, and hence in violation of his fundamental human rights. The grounds for that conviction are that he is known to have been arrested and to have been in the Chile Stadium, that it is attested that he died as a result of many bullet wounds,
thus indicating that he was executed together with the other prisoners whose bodies appeared alongside his. The overview to this period provides an account of the various kinds of torture to which VÃctor Jara was subjected while under arrest. http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/chile/1993_pt3ch1_A2a2_153-167.html

I look forward to adding this information, as you advised yesterday. Please let me know when you have unprotected the page. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Shouldn't you be asking the locking Sysop? Ed cannot unlock something RobS locked. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, it was Ed who told me to add these cites. And it's interesting to note that RobS protected the page AFTER telling me to go ahead and put in precisely what I put it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Shouldn't all of this be on Ed's talk page? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Information

2007-04-15T15:45:59Z

Tsumetai: /* Attribution */

Chess

2007-04-15T13:36:35Z

Tsumetai: /* Special Moves */

[[Image:Staunton chess set.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A typical chess set and tournament clock.]]
'''Chess''' is a turn-based board game for two players, and is generally considered the most popular game in the world.<ref>[http://50.lycos.com/082902.asp Equally Popular:Board Games], ''Lycos''</ref> Chess has its roots in [[India]], where locals played a game called Shaturanga. The earliest extant description of the game is contained in the [[Bhavishya Purana]], which dates from A.D. 300 to A.D. 600. [[European]] travelers visited India in the 15th century, and brought back knowledge of the game, and modern chess was developed in southern Europe. The goal of the game is to place the opposing king into ''checkmate'', that is, a position in which the king is attacked and cannot escape from this situation.

Shaturanga used [[dice]], but [[Hinduism]] bans gambling. As a result, the game of chess developed free from any dice or chance.

Modern international chess has a powerful, sweeping [[queen]] who was not in the original game. The long reach of bishops today was also lacking at first. Maneuvers such as castling or capturing en passant have been developed within the past few hundred years.

Today, chess is one of the most popular board games in the world. International competition, including world championship events, is organized by an organization called FIDE and American competition organized by the USCF (United States Chess Federation). The only American world champion was [[Robert J. Fischer]]. The current world champion is Russian Vladimir Kramnik.

==Pieces==
[[Image:StauntonPieces.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Staunton Style chess pieces.]]
Each player has a total of 16 pieces; 8 pawns, 2 bishops, 2 knights, 2 rooks, 1 queen, 1 king. 
*The '''pawn''' moves one square forward, except on its first move, when it can optionally move two. It captures opposing pieces by capturing one square diagonally. It cannot capture in a backward diagonal motion. All other pieces capture opposing pieces by moving to the square on which the opposing piece is. A player cannot capture one of his own pieces. 
*The '''bishop''' can move as many squares as desired diagonally. 
*The '''knight''', which is the only piece that can jump over other pieces, moves one square in one straight direction and two in the other. 
*The '''rook''' can move as many squares as desired in a straight direction. 
*The '''queen''' is the most powerful piece in the board. It can move as many squares as desired (without jumping over another piece), either straight or diagonally. 
*The '''king''', which is the most important piece on the board, moves one square, either straight or diagonally.

Players may occassionally assign point values to pieces, which are roughly indicative of the piece's strategic importance. The common point values are noted above.

The most popular style of pieces are known as Staunton style pieces, the tournament standard for chess pieces, although other types exist. Often, popular themed chess sets will appear with characters from popular culture or fiction taking the places of the more common Staunton style pieces. These novelty pieces are not tournament sanctioned however, and can sometimes cause confusion during gameplay as to which piece is which.

Although chess pieces can come in a variety of materials, marble and glass tend to be very popular, but for most chess tournaments, simple plastic pieces are usually favored. Also, while many home chess sets use heavy boards made out of wood or stone or some polymer material, tournament boards are actually roll-able mats with the board printed on it.

==Gameplay ==
All pieces attack each other along their lines of motion - if a piece could move to occupy the location of another piece, it can therefore be taken. The only piece that does not attack along lines of motion is the '''pawn''', which can only attack diagonally by one square. A piece is said to be undefended if it has no piece "supporting" its position - i.e., preventing an opponent from taking it by threat of losing his attacking piece.

The goal of the game is to protect your own '''King''' while attacking your opponent's. Every time the King is under direct '''threat''' from another piece - queen, bishop, et al, the King is said to be under '''check.''' When a player is in check, the King must be protected - no move that fails to remedy the check is acceptable.

When check is not correctable - as in, when the King is under check, and no move can be made to extract him, the King is under '''checkmate''', and the opposing player wins. Alternately, if the King is NOT under check, but the player cannot move with any other piece, and the King cannot be moved without placing himself in check, '''stalemate''' occurs, which means that the game is a draw.

The player with the White pieces always moves first.

When a pawn reaches the far side of the board, it may be promoted to any other piece (except a King).
==Special Moves==
*'''Castling'''- When a player has no pieces between a rook and his king, and he has not moved either piece, he can move the king two squares in the direction of the rook, and then place the rook on the square that the king passed over. A player cannot castle if the King is currently in check, would be in check after castling, or would move through a square which is under attack.
*'''en passant'''- French for "In passing." In chess, if a player pushes his pawn far down to the end of the board, and his opponent pushes a starting pawn 2 spaces ahead, to put the pawn on the same row to avoid confrontation, the player may choose to invoke the "en passant" move, which treats the enemy pawn as though it had only moved one space. The player may capture diagonally on the square '''behind''' the enemy pawn, and remove the enemy pawn. The principle is that the two space rule for a pawn's first move cannot be used to avoid confrontation between two pawns. However, the player may only invoke "en passant" on the first turn after the opponent pushes his pawn. You cannot make it after than turn.

== Strategy==
There are several classic chess moves that form the basis of any strategy -
* '''"Double-filing"''' - placing two Rooks in line with each other creates a very powerful vertical or horizontal force along that line.
*'''Forking''' - attacking two undefended pieces simultaneously with one piece of your own. This forces your opponent to, essentially, choose which piece to sacrifice. Forking between rooks is a common strategy, especially with a knight. Forking between a rook and a king is common, too, since the player obviously cannot surrender his King!
*'''Pinning'''- this strategy involves maneuvering your piece, so that there is an enemy piece in between your piece and the enemy king. This creates a situation in where the opponent cannot move the piece in question anymore, because to do so would be to place the king in check, effectively "pinning" the piece. This strategy can be used to make taking the piece in question an easy task, or by keeping the piece in question from interfering in a future attack.
*'''Sacrificing for Position'''- This involves intentionally allowing your opponent to take a piece, in order to open up for a counter attack. By offering up the piece, the opponent may weaken his defenses by attacking it, allowing for a decisive strike.
*'''The Pickle'''-This is a special gambit in chess that may work on inexperienced players. By pushing king's pawn as your opening move. If your opponent pushes kings pawn as well (the most common response to kings pawn is to push kings pawn), then move the queen to h5 on the board. If the player is ambitious, they will most likely advance the knight's pawn to g6 to attack your queen. At that point, move the queen to take the king's pawn on e6. This will place the king in check, forcing him to block the check with a piece. Then, since he moved his knight's pawn, the path will be clear for you to capture the kings rook, effectively removing one pawn and one rook from the game by turn 7 and imbedding your queen behind his front lines.
[[Category:board games]]

===Relative Value of Pieces===
There are several different ideas about the relative value of the pieces. It is important to note that the "points" used to assign a value to each piece are hypothetical and do not constitute a score.

The method most often used is:
*Pawn--1
*Knight--3 (some say 2.5)
*Bishop--3
*Rook--5
*Queen--9
*King--Priceless (although in an endgame, the King has an attacking power of about 3)

Talk:Definition of evolution

2007-04-15T11:29:34Z

Tsumetai: Increasing genetic information

Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,

:''Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for adding the bit about [[unguided evolution]]. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== that Earth is insignificant? ==

Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the "anthropic principle".[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am under the impression that it is primarily leftists and atheists who argue that life on Earth is insignificant because of life on other planets, billions of stars, Darwinian processes, etc. I don't have any references handy. I am throwing it out here for discussion. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Alas, such nonsense. The page contains not-so-much a valid definition as a whining screed again evolution written by folks who know nothing of evolution. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== eh what? ==

''A leftist-atheist philosophy. This says that man is no better than an animal; that Earth is insignificant; that progress does not exist; that the history of life is unguided, unplanned, and random;[3] and that materialist explanations have replaced all spiritual ones. Various other ideas may also be included, depending on the evolutionist.''

eh? where did this get dragged up from? what's the connection between people on the left and being an atheist? I'm (british) right and an atheist. As for the rest of it, the mind bogggles! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 08:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roger, that is a comment beneath you. It is insulting, uncited, and unChristian. As I said most scientists, and atheists, and leftists, consider the Earth pretty darn significant, as we live here. That does not change the cosmologic fact that we are one of billions of solar systems, so cosmologically not particularly significant. But, from a human perspective, Earth could hardly be more significant. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That bit about a leftist-atheist philosophy is out of place, I believe. It is how some people see evolution our place in the universe and how they see the lack of purpose in evolution, but it's not a definition of evolution per se. I think it likely belongs in the article (perhaps modified somewhat), but not ''as a definition''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me clarify, as one of the scientists here, humans ''are'' animals, that is indisputable. Per those of us who are scientists, we are unique animals in many ways, and that is significant. Earth is significant for the above reasons. Science, however, does not comment on the ''moral'' significance of humans or Earth. That is religion's job.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's not indisputable at all. Whether or not humans are animals really depends on the definitions of your classification system. Personally, I'd define plants as living things with a body, animals as living things with a body and mind, and humans as living things with a body, mind, and soul. Ergo, humans are not animals ''according to that classification system''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::They have sequenced human and chimp DNA and estimate that there is about a 2% difference between the two. If chimps are animals, then human DNA codes 98% animal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That is only relevant if you are using that as part of your classification system. They've also found that humans have about 50% of their DNA in common with bananas, so does that make us 50% plants? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::No, but it indicates that humans and plants forked from each other a lot earlier than humans and chimps did. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Whether or not they forked at all is a separate issue. But if sharing 50% of our DNA does not make us 50% plants, why does sharing 98% of our DNA with animals (well, one type only) make us 98% animal? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The same way sharing 99.9% of my DNA with Asians makes me 99.9% Asian which overrides the 99.3% of my DNA I share with Caucasians, which, in the absence of my predominantly Asian DNA, would make me Caucasian. Quod erat demonstrandum. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::99.9%? Good try, but you would not normally be classified as "99.9% Asian", but simply "Asian", and this would have been the case well before DNA was heard of let alone measurable. Therefore, humans would not be described as "98% ape" or "98% animal", but (by that logic), simply "ape" (which of course they are not) or "animal" (which they usually are, but not for that reason). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, {{remove personal remark|that question reveals a level of ignorance so profound that}} I'm not sure where to start. The kingdoms of Animalia an Plantae branched off very far in the past, far enough that, while we share enough DNA to show that we both originated from common ancestors on Earth, evolution as separated us enough that we not only are separate species, but actually in separated kingdoms.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::You confuse disagreement for ignorance. You are not telling me something that I've never heard, but something that I disagree with; I don't agree that we split at all (i.e. I reject evolution). However, that is not the point. I was not talking about where we came from, but how we are classified, and pointing out that there can be more than way to classify things. Do we classify according to percentage similarities of DNA, according to the existence or otherwise of a soul, or according to any number of other possible ways of classifying? And even that question is a bit pointless because you are not limited to classifying things according to only one classification system. That is, you could classify according to similarity of DNA '''and'' according to the existence of a soul. So you could then say that we are animals according to classification system A but not according to classification system B. It's a bit like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet. Whether or not it's a planet depends on which classification system you are using, and astronomers recently decided to change which classification system they used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== That particular definition ==

As per '''grand''' consensus on this discussion page and the discussion page of [[Theory of Evolution]], I am removing the fourth definition. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 09:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since the soul is immaterial, it is not a part of a scientific classification system. You cant measure it, you can perhaps say humans have one, but then what? Measure a chimps soul?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:Do all possible classification systems have to be scientific ones? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:Before I make my following remarks, I want to make absolutely clear that as a Christian, I reject astrology.
:I would think that a better word than "effective" would be "useful". Classifications need to be ''useful''. But that depends on what they are ''used'' for, and they can have different uses.
:An astrologer might decide to classify stars according to their (purported) effect on people's destinies. That sort of classification system would not be ''useful'' to an astronomer, but it would be ''useful'' to the astrologer. But it would not be "scientific".
:An alternative examples is railway gauges. Gauges are classified into ''narrow'', ''standard'', and ''broad''. I would not consider these to be ''scientific'' classifications (they are somewhat arbitrary), but it is a ''useful'' classification system nevertheless.
:So I reject that ''all'' classification systems ''have to be'' scientific.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that ''is'' the way it is. We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning. {{remove personal remark|To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to [[Satan|deceive]].}}[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:When I get the chance, I'd like to do a bit of a cleanup on this article myself (if others don't beat me to it). I'd probably reinstate the deleted bit, but not ''as a definition'', because I don't believe that it is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article does not say that it is just about scientific aspects of evolution. People often discuss nonscientific aspects, and it is misleading to avoid them. The deleted text should go back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is not off-topic at all. There is considerable debate over whether "science" is allowed to tread into the areas of [[philosophy]], [[metaphysics]] or [[religion]]. And [[methodologicial naturalism]] makes a statement about the scope of science, i.e., whether it can cope with the [[supernatural]] - this leads to the recent unpleasantness about [[Intelligent Design]]. (We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gradual appearance of new forms of life ==

''the gradual appearance of new forms of life''. I think not, gradual changes to existing species, so that, for example when populations groups become isolated from each other, after a very, very, very long time the accumulation of gradual changes will be such that the resulting population groups can be considered separate species. Well something like that. This article seems to be written by people who don't really grasp what they are writing about.

[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks [[User:Sid_3050|Sid 3050]] for moving that here. It wasn't my intention to place under the article. An oversight on my part.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase you object to is in quotes as though it was the question asked in a survey. If so, it should stand, but admittedly there is no reference supporting it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flawed questions in surveys and flawed sources lead to bad articles. How about getting a scientist who specializes in evolution to write a definition?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It will immediately be reverted for having a liberal bias. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

{{remove personal remark|Don't be so pessimistic.}} I won't let anyone revert an article on a false basis. Anyway, this article is specifically about the different definitions.

Please add the Liberal definition. And add the Scientific definition, Conservative definition, Old Earth, Young Earth, Intelligent Design, Roman Catholic and any other definition you can find. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]==

I blotted out a few remarks which seemed to be more about personalities than about the topic at hand. I hope no one minds. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I reverted mine, because it was not insulting and it was appropriate. If you want to spend time doing this, Ed, I could point you to plenty of others, such as on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Is_the_Bible_Inerrant%3f Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?] page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't regard your remark as insulting, and I made it as easy as possible to unhide it. That's why I used a template: so it shows up when you are in edit mode. (Actually, your remark was the mildest of them all - as well as being entirely on point. I guess I just wanted to try out my new template. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== My cleanup is finished ==
I've extensively rewritten much of the article, and that's about all I can do for now. The '''Use of different definitions''' section could still do with a cleanup, and some other parts could do with more in them. Two specific suggestions are:
* The '''Development of life''' section could mention that this is the popular view, and supporting citations might be polls where the questions about evolution were consistent with this definition.
* The '''Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion''' section could do with some more work. I've reincorporated most of the section that RSchlafly wanted back in, but not quite all of it. Perhaps some quotes from evolutionists on what evolution means to them could go in here, along with some references claiming that evolution is nothing more than a dispassionate scientific theory.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Increasing genetic information ==

Isn't that the creationist definition of '''macro'''evolution? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Macroevolution

2007-04-15T11:26:38Z

Tsumetai: /* Neutral Evolution */

== First Arg ==
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"

So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition ''Origin of Species'' (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks. [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Ray, the question was completely and utterly irrelevant, but if you insist I'll answer anyways(why I'm bothering I don't know)- see for example Dobzhansky Pavlovsky's 1971 paper- "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" Nature 23:289-292. Note furthermore, that speciation is so well demonstrated that AIG, one of the world's largest creationist ministries lists claiming speciation has not occured as an example of an argument that creationists should ''not'' use.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp]. In any event, this is all not germane to my original point- that the claim made here that mutation cannot increase genetic material is so wrong that even AIG agrees that that is inaccurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Are you claiming that speciesiation has never been observed in the lab? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::: So you have one experiment ''Drosophila'' that justifies the extraordinary and main claim of ToE (= macroevolution)? Why not a 100 or even 15? Are you telling me the main assertion of ToE has ONE questionable experiment to justify its existence? So much for experimentation determining facts. This is why we know the Emperor is naked. And by the way, we know that information in the genetic code can be read out but nothing can be written in, which still leaves us wanting an explanation as to where new information comes from?

:::[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:For that matter, ''why'' is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The statement ''The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position'' is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

Since this article is bound to be rather contentious, I'm going to explain my changes here, and invite other editors to do likewise:

#"unproven theory" is redundant
#"transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism" is simply wrong; is man ''completely'' different from other apes? No, of course not; we're all apes, all primates, all mammals, all animals, etc. etc.

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

#"Clade" defined clade.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fleshing out this page==

I am currently working on fleshing out the page a bit. Please be kind as I am adding a little at a time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative's revert and locking==

Could you explain why you reverted this page and locked it while it was posted that it was being work on?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:There is nothing that states that evolution is fact in what I wrote conservative. I stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process within evolution. That is not stating that it was a fact nor that evolution was a fact. Please unlock this page and allow for further editing like the VSA said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Neutral Evolution==
If the page was unprotected I could have finished with the editing so that you could see how Neutral evolution is a mech. of macroevolution. However since the page is still locked we nonsysops can not touch it.

Thanks Hojimachong for reverting the page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Post the complete edit here and I'll put it in if I think it does show that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai has reinserted neutral evolution bit, with the comment, "''selectively neutral doesn't mean no change to the phenotype''". No, but surely it doesn't mean that it constitutes '''macro'''evolution. Anyway, I'll wait for TimS' extra material. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I will continue when I have the chance on the edit. I am on lunch right now. Tsumetai is correct in that neutral evolution does not mean a lack of change in the phenotype, an example in laymans terms, hair color is a neutral change in the phenotype. A single neutral change does not have an impact on the speciation but it is the accumilation of these phenotype changes that makes the difference and thus the impact on speciation. That is why neutral evolution is considered a mech. of macroevolution. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not all neutral drift is macroevolution, but it's still a mechanism that contributes significantly to the process. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'll need more convincing than that. A change in hair colour could be no stretch of the imagination be considered '''macro'''evolution. Perhaps the following analogy is bad, but if mutations could be rated according to their impact, some might be negative (-1), some positive (+1), and some neutral (0). An accumulation of neutral changes (0+0+0+0+0+0)... I think you can see where I'm going there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sure, a string of selectively neutral mutations is itself selectively neutral. But the phenotypic effect of each may be non-zero, so when you add ''those'' together, you can end up with an arbitrarily large phenotypic shift.

:::For that matter, even silent mutations contribute to evolution by providing more variation upon which future mutations can act. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Change below the species level, basically. Any given genetic mechanism can contribute to both micro and macro. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==
When you refer something to the panel you cannot delete all material that YOU YOURSELF object to, and then protect it. That is an abuse of power.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: I demand that you re-instate your content and THEN protect it. Articles should be preserved in the status quo under appeal, NOT subject to your caprices.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Conservative, you have a lot of people allied against you on this. It is improper to modify a page that has been submitted to the Panel.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for him. He got away with it on the Theory of Evolution page. Even after the panel ruled, he got away with making an important substantive change (removing the link to The Origin of Species itself) without even a slap on the wrist; the only comment made on that ''at all'' by anyone with power, was the Panel mischaracterizing it is him adding a book to the recommended reading list. Nothing is improper for Conservative. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Macroevolution

2007-04-15T00:39:36Z

Tsumetai: /* Neutral Evolution */

== First Arg ==
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"

So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition ''Origin of Species'' (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks. [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Ray, the question was completely and utterly irrelevant, but if you insist I'll answer anyways(why I'm bothering I don't know)- see for example Dobzhansky Pavlovsky's 1971 paper- "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" Nature 23:289-292. Note furthermore, that speciation is so well demonstrated that AIG, one of the world's largest creationist ministries lists claiming speciation has not occured as an example of an argument that creationists should ''not'' use.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp]. In any event, this is all not germane to my original point- that the claim made here that mutation cannot increase genetic material is so wrong that even AIG agrees that that is inaccurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Are you claiming that speciesiation has never been observed in the lab? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::: So you have one experiment ''Drosophila'' that justifies the extraordinary and main claim of ToE (= macroevolution)? Why not a 100 or even 15? Are you telling me the main assertion of ToE has ONE questionable experiment to justify its existence? So much for experimentation determining facts. This is why we know the Emperor is naked. And by the way, we know that information in the genetic code can be read out but nothing can be written in, which still leaves us wanting an explanation as to where new information comes from?

:::[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:For that matter, ''why'' is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The statement ''The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position'' is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

Since this article is bound to be rather contentious, I'm going to explain my changes here, and invite other editors to do likewise:

#"unproven theory" is redundant
#"transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism" is simply wrong; is man ''completely'' different from other apes? No, of course not; we're all apes, all primates, all mammals, all animals, etc. etc.

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

#"Clade" defined clade.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fleshing out this page==

I am currently working on fleshing out the page a bit. Please be kind as I am adding a little at a time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative's revert and locking==

Could you explain why you reverted this page and locked it while it was posted that it was being work on?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:There is nothing that states that evolution is fact in what I wrote conservative. I stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process within evolution. That is not stating that it was a fact nor that evolution was a fact. Please unlock this page and allow for further editing like the VSA said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Neutral Evolution==
If the page was unprotected I could have finished with the editing so that you could see how Neutral evolution is a mech. of macroevolution. However since the page is still locked we nonsysops can not touch it.

Thanks Hojimachong for reverting the page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Post the complete edit here and I'll put it in if I think it does show that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai has reinserted neutral evolution bit, with the comment, "''selectively neutral doesn't mean no change to the phenotype''". No, but surely it doesn't mean that it constitutes '''macro'''evolution. Anyway, I'll wait for TimS' extra material. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I will continue when I have the chance on the edit. I am on lunch right now. Tsumetai is correct in that neutral evolution does not mean a lack of change in the phenotype, an example in laymans terms, hair color is a neutral change in the phenotype. A single neutral change does not have an impact on the speciation but it is the accumilation of these phenotype changes that makes the difference and thus the impact on speciation. That is why neutral evolution is considered a mech. of macroevolution. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not all neutral drift is macroevolution, but it's still a mechanism that contributes significantly to the process. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'll need more convincing than that. A change in hair colour could be no stretch of the imagination be considered '''macro'''evolution. Perhaps the following analogy is bad, but if mutations could be rated according to their impact, some might be negative (-1), some positive (+1), and some neutral (0). An accumulation of neutral changes (0+0+0+0+0+0)... I think you can see where I'm going there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sure, a string of selectively neutral mutations is itself selectively neutral. But the phenotypic effect of each may be non-zero, so when you add ''those'' together, you can end up with an arbitrarily large phenotypic shift.

:::For that matter, even silent mutations contribute to evolution by providing more variation upon which future mutations can act. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative what the...!? ==
When you refer something to the panel you cannot delete all material that YOU YOURSELF object to, and then protect it. That is an abuse of power.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: I demand that you re-instate your content and THEN protect it. Articles should be preserved in the status quo under appeal, NOT subject to your caprices.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The

2007-04-14T22:37:30Z

Tsumetai:

Does this article really need to exist? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT) 
Yes, every article should exist. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 18:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, that wastes space. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
And bandwidth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:And braincells. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:MountainDew

2007-04-14T22:26:43Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by ROBS (Talk); changed back to last version by MountainDew

Archive:
*[[User talk:MountainDewarchive1]]
*[[User talk:MountainDewarchive2]]

==Edit-Delete conflict==

Wow! My first ever "you deleted, I edited" conflict. There's not even a word for it.

Hey, don't get me wrong, if you think the article can't be salvaged, go ahead and re-delete. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't have a problem with you salvaging it. See my talk page comment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, I don't want to alienate my best friend at Conservapedia. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mining ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&curid=3327&diff=78371&oldid=78363 The definition of quote mining], this edit was done by [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I would appreciate some backup when I actually get him to talk, because that edit shows blatant abridging which completely changes the meaning of the quote. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't want to get deeper into an edit war, so I kindly ask that you undo Conservative's last revision to [[Theory of evolution]]. I don't know you're personal opinions on the subject, but I do know that you're here to build an encyclopedia (being one of the most prolific editors here), and an intentionally mined quote when the full version is in the last revision is unacceptable. I asked Conservative to provide a reason for his reversions, and he has given none. I would appreciate this. Thanks, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Huey ==

:Even if his ban isn't undone, he can still use email user. You are sure he should be blocked? Geo.[www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pat Robertson, On feminism ==

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992

Why'd you delete it? He said it, it belongs on the page. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Pat Robertson is "out of the Conservative mainstream"? Since when? The guy ran for president as a Republican back in 1988, and Bush Senior certainly didn't treat him like he was just some kook! --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== I will let Andy decide about the pic policy ==

I will let Andy decide about the pic policy. I do know that in private schools aborted baby pics are shown. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== assistance ==

Wanna block [[User:Theimp?]]

== Response ==

I was responding to the state of the Obama article which said that critique indicated that he could not win because he was black.

== My appeal to Conservative ==

Please see Conservative's talk page, at the bottom, and post your opinions on my outlined statements. I would really appreciate your opinion, MD, because you are one of the best editors here. In Christ, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== george w. bush ==

I'm trying to figure out how to do this correctly. I'm requesting that information be added to the george w. bush. Here's what I said on the discussion page;

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

Hope I did this right..

*Well, still no signature so users will know who you are. This is the ''Conserv''apedia, not Wikipedia. The insertions you are asking about are gossipy, thus against our rules. Why do you think poll numbers are germain to the article? Will it make him no longer President? Will it undo the vote? No, and several historians, while a President is still in office, rating someone such is moronic. History is the long view, not the short one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nancy Pelosi==

Why did you remove that information?

It could be worded in a way so as not to call Pelosi a terrorist. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say she was a terrorist, I just said terrorists express support for her.

== Was was my edit reverted? ==

Why did you revert my edit? Do you dispute that the nazi party was right wing? --[[User:C for Conservative|C for Conservative]] 17:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for fixing that. --[[User:C for Conservative|C for Conservative]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
==Please for to see==
Are we allowed to copy 1:1??
[[Amazing grace| Please view the talk page as well]].
::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 23:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't my name be in blue like everyone else's? ==

Hi Mountain Dew, I'm an Australian contributor to Conservapedia and a good writer and proofreader to boot. Why is my name in plain old black while others have their name in blue and are thus hyperlinked? It's doing my self-esteem ever so much harm. I came to you because I read here that you were an Old World Creationist. I'm a bisexual, atheistic communist revolutionary myself, so naturally I turned to you. MylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au April 6, 2007 AD.

== Biblical Creation Account locked ==

You locked [[Biblical creation account]] (then called "Creation") on 14th March. When did you have in mind to unlock it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== You are doing a great job fighting vandalism ==

You are doing a great job fighting vandalism! I just wanted to let you know that someone appreciates your work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Great block ==

Great block on WolfieSmith. You beat me to it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada ==

Sorry to bother you, I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm concerned that CoulterMan is citing dated facts, and not listening to reason when I present it to him. I updated the facts, yet he proceeded to add the dated fact after the one I cited above. As well, he is consistently turning the Canada page into "How Canada Compares to the United States". What are our options for handling this user? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for locking it. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Happy Easter! ==

Happy Easter to you, Dan!

'''The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." ''Matthew 28''
 '''Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
''—Acts 10:34-43 NIV''''''''

--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRC ==

I have no idea how to use Trillian at all :-\, I tried it and didn't like it, so I went back to using ChatZilla, though I think [[User:TK]] uses Trillian, so you might try asking him. Happy Easter! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quick googling gave [http://www.discarnate.com/boysnextdoor/IRC.html this] and [http://www.gimptalk.com/forum/topic.php?t=18245&start=1 this]. Maybe it helps... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
==AwaitTawniestmound==
This user is a SirCliff sock. Could you help block the others?Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberty ==

Mountain Dew - that's my favorite soda too! I'm glad to see you wrote an article about a Liberty professor. Who was it? If you don't go to school there, what are your connections? Maybe we have mutual friends? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 19:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I just checked out your article on Professor Habermas, to see if there was anything I could add. Imagine my surprise when I found out that you really got everything down! It is too bad you couldn't see his speech on the "lost tomb," he did a really great job. I'll try and see if I can find a video of it somewhere, he is an amazing speaker. --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 20:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Impersonating God? ==

It hardly seems necessary to ban someone for that--usually, the lack of their posts being rendered in mile-high letters of flame kind of gives it away. Besides, what if the REAL God posts, and you ban him by accident for being too liberal? That sort of mix-up could only lead to tragedy and Smitings. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 00:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:God himself would probably register as "God" (or "Yahweh" :P). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Boxes ==

Add <nowiki>{{userboxtop|MountainDew}} and {{userboxbottom}}.</nowiki>-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good old days ==

I miss the good old days of massive page move vandal attacks... :-(. Well, not really. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

== Request unprotection of [[Dick Cheney]] ==

Would it be possible to unprotect [[Dick Cheney]]? I've got a few edits I'd like to make. The move vandalism that appeared to cause the protection isn't possible anymore, and I've got the page on my watchlist now. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Me, too, please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for unblocking CoulterMan! Have you read some of his edits? I never knew that President [[Jimmy Carter]] believed in UFOs and supported space programs so that we could join a galactic civilizations! CoulterMan's stuff is good, and a "nazi" reference is frequently made in American discourse, even if improper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pledge... ==

I have proudly posted a version of the "Pledge" on my user page, that I can acccept. It includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved, and does not ignore them. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

<div style="width: 550px; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #999; background: #ccc; margin: .5em auto .5em auto; padding: 5px;"><big>'''Sysop Pledge'''</big> As a Conservapedia Sysop, '''''I will never arbitrarily block anyone who is not in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]], and related CP Guidelines.''''' </div>
==You might==
You might want to delete these [[Image:Star Wars Galactic Empire emblem.svg"]] and [[Image:RebelAlliance.jpg]] as they're probably copyright violations. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 18:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Macroevolution

2007-04-14T21:33:17Z

Tsumetai: /* Neutral Evolution */

== First Arg ==
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"

So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition ''Origin of Species'' (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks. [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Ray, the question was completely and utterly irrelevant, but if you insist I'll answer anyways(why I'm bothering I don't know)- see for example Dobzhansky Pavlovsky's 1971 paper- "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" Nature 23:289-292. Note furthermore, that speciation is so well demonstrated that AIG, one of the world's largest creationist ministries lists claiming speciation has not occured as an example of an argument that creationists should ''not'' use.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp]. In any event, this is all not germane to my original point- that the claim made here that mutation cannot increase genetic material is so wrong that even AIG agrees that that is inaccurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Are you claiming that speciesiation has never been observed in the lab? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::: So you have one experiment ''Drosophila'' that justifies the extraordinary and main claim of ToE (= macroevolution)? Why not a 100 or even 15? Are you telling me the main assertion of ToE has ONE questionable experiment to justify its existence? So much for experimentation determining facts. This is why we know the Emperor is naked. And by the way, we know that information in the genetic code can be read out but nothing can be written in, which still leaves us wanting an explanation as to where new information comes from?

:::[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:For that matter, ''why'' is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The statement ''The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position'' is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

Since this article is bound to be rather contentious, I'm going to explain my changes here, and invite other editors to do likewise:

#"unproven theory" is redundant
#"transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism" is simply wrong; is man ''completely'' different from other apes? No, of course not; we're all apes, all primates, all mammals, all animals, etc. etc.

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

#"Clade" defined clade.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fleshing out this page==

I am currently working on fleshing out the page a bit. Please be kind as I am adding a little at a time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative's revert and locking==

Could you explain why you reverted this page and locked it while it was posted that it was being work on?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:There is nothing that states that evolution is fact in what I wrote conservative. I stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process within evolution. That is not stating that it was a fact nor that evolution was a fact. Please unlock this page and allow for further editing like the VSA said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Neutral Evolution==
If the page was unprotected I could have finished with the editing so that you could see how Neutral evolution is a mech. of macroevolution. However since the page is still locked we nonsysops can not touch it.

Thanks Hojimachong for reverting the page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Post the complete edit here and I'll put it in if I think it does show that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai has reinserted neutral evolution bit, with the comment, "''selectively neutral doesn't mean no change to the phenotype''". No, but surely it doesn't mean that it constitutes '''macro'''evolution. Anyway, I'll wait for TimS' extra material. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I will continue when I have the chance on the edit. I am on lunch right now. Tsumetai is correct in that neutral evolution does not mean a lack of change in the phenotype, an example in laymans terms, hair color is a neutral change in the phenotype. A single neutral change does not have an impact on the speciation but it is the accumilation of these phenotype changes that makes the difference and thus the impact on speciation. That is why neutral evolution is considered a mech. of macroevolution. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not all neutral drift is macroevolution, but it's still a mechanism that contributes significantly to the process. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative what the...!? ==
When you refer something to the panel you cannot delete all material that YOU YOURSELF object to, and then protect it. That is an abuse of power.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: I demand that you re-instate your content and THEN protect it. Articles should be preserved in the status quo under appeal, NOT subject to your caprices.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-14T21:31:51Z

Tsumetai: /* Macroevolution article - request a ruling */

Talk:Triceratops

2007-04-14T14:15:05Z

Tsumetai: /* "Reverted edits by 03rlawford " ? */

== "Reverted edits by 03rlawford " ? ==

What is the reason for reverting this? The new article was immensely more useful and informative. Was it a cut-and-paste from somewhere?

:Yes. It was lifted straight from Wikipedia. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Manifest Destiny

2007-04-14T11:49:03Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Abraham2007 (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

'''Manifest Destiny''' was the belief that it was the American peoples' birthright to control the whole of the American continent. This obviously gave rise to conflicts with many nations over territorial claims. The secret [[Ostend Manifesto]], written in Ostend, [[Belgium]] in 1854 by the U.S. ambassadors to [[Spain]], [[France]], and [[Britain]], was perhaps the first warning of the conflicts Manifest Destiny would soon cause. The document was essentially a plan for the United States to acquire [[Cuba]] from Spain through a purchase, and if necessary, force.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0837014.html</ref> Southern [[Democrats]] hoped the acquired island would become another slave state, and that future acqusitions would negate northerners' efforts to prevent the spread of slavery. Abolitionist presses, however, when the document was made public, denounced the agreement and the plan never went into effect. While this did not lead to armed conflict, it was only a matter of time before Manifest Destiny would be put to the test. Expansionist [[James K. Polk]] was sworn into office in 1845. "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" became a catchphrase for the annexation of the entire [[Oregon]] Country, then co-owned with [[Great Britain]]. The slogan referred to the region's northern boundary of 54°40ʹ N latitude. Eventually, the 49th Parallel was settled upon, which now forms most of the US-Canada border. Polk also added the new state of [[Texas]] to the Union, and after the [[Mexican-American War]], nearly annexed all of [[Mexico]].
<references/>
[[category:United States]]

Battle of Hastings

2007-04-14T11:48:46Z

Tsumetai: Reverted edits by Abraham2007 (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

[[Image:Battle_of_Hastings.gif|thumb|450px|Map of the Battle of Hastings]]
The Battle of Hastings was fought on October 14, 1066, between [[William the Conqueror]], Duke of Normandy and [[Harold Godwinson]], Earl of Wessex. The issue of succession to the English throne provided the basis for the battle, with King Edward the Confessor dying without heirs. Both William and Harold claimed the English throne, the eventual result being the invasion of England by William to assert his claim. The battle ended with victory for the Normans due largely to the poor discipline of the Anglo-Saxon militia that formed a large part of Harold's army. The Anglo-Saxon army had also been weakened due to fighting with a Norwegian invasion led by Harald Hardrada before encountering the Norman army, as well as the difficult march from the northern England (where the Norwegians attacked) to the south of England (site of the Norman landings). The battle led to the founding of a French speaking dynasty and aristocracy in England. The numbering of English monarchs begins with the Conquest brought about by the Battle of Hastings. The battle is portrayed in the famous "Bayeux Tapestry." The battle was not fought at Hastings but at the nearby town of Battle, hence this word is now used for large military actions.

[[Category:wars]]